Archive for the ‘GroupThink Nonsense’ Category

On Burping Cows

Tuesday, July 10th, 2007

Some propeller-beanie egghead Brit has figured out burping cows may be partially responsible for global warming.

Nobody ever reads this blog, but among the nobodies who do, this is old news. We’d talked about it here when Al Gore’s movie first came out. A lot of the same stuff you see in my rants nowadays…I think global warming is a bunch of nonsense, and when I’m out riding my bike, I get run off the road by tree-hugging hippies in SUV’s who think Bush should’ve signed the Kyoto treaty. The irony of it all.

The point was all the things we would be doing if we were really concerned about climate change — that we aren’t doing. The cows were an afterthought, but my little screed was chock full of numbers, properly sourced to a CNN article. From 2000. So you see, this is nothing new.

Cows — and other agricultural components as well, I should add — have more of a polluting effect than cars, machinery, and other techno-industrial hobgoblins. More of a greenhouse-gas effect.

I never would have imagined, back when I wrote that up, that we would have a world-wide rock concert phenomenon to alert people to how guilty they should be feeling about carbon emissions. I wonder how many people attended those concerts while ordering cheeseburgers for the whole family.

Memo For File XLIII

Sunday, June 24th, 2007

Evidence arrives to indicate Tom Leykis, some four years and change ago, really pushed the envelope. I haven’t listened to Tom in about a decade, so I didn’t hear the show in question. It seems to be over the line, I’m convinced, even after reading MOJO Radio’s response to an official complaint.

The issue is drunk driving. Actually, that deserves elaboration. The issue is our society’s response to the problem. I can personally testify to the fact that Leykis has been harping on this for years; his politics are way different from mine, but I found him to be entertaining and enlightening, and made a point of catching his show whenever I could while it was playing here.

I can’t think of a more controversial position I’ve heard him take, on anything.

And I can’t think of another issue on which I agree with him more strongly.

Reckless and offensive as this stunt seems to have been, his point is right on the money. As a society, for all the bluster you hear we don’t do anything that seems calculated to mount an effective countermeasure against the drunk driving problem…and we do quite a few things that seem calculated to keep it going strong.

I have a favorite example in mind: Ordering beer with your pizza delivery. Can’t do it. Not in my county; wherever you sit as you read this, you probably can’t either. Now at first glance, this seems like a reasonable and effective rule. Hey it’s Sunday and the game is on, come on over to my place and we’ll get three pies with some brew. After everyone’s smashed and needs to get home, we’ll worry about transportation at that time. So yeah I can see the logic. Such a status quo can lead to nothing but trouble.

My objection is to the absolutism — the notion that if a little of something is good, a lot of it must be a whole lot better, and thus our nascent movement is betrayed by anyone stopping for a moment, for whatever reason. The notion that putting one foot in front of the other a few more times, is always an adequate substitute for thinking. As is so often the case with laws, it is non-productive and even demonstrably counter-productive. Who orders pizzas? A gaggle of guys watching a football game on Sunday…or slobby lazy bachelors without a date on a Friday night who don’t feel like cooking? Really — am I to believe the pizza parlors sit around six nights a week, twiddling their thumbs, waiting for Sunday when the real business starts? That’s just too much for my fragile little mind to absorb. Call me a dreamer, but I think most pizza is ordered by lazy people. No occasion involved. Just don’t feel like firing up the stove. Guys like me.

People who are in for the night.

Want a pizza? No problem, I’ll pick up the phone. Pizza with beer? Sorry. There’s beer in the fridge, or if there isn’t…you go without. Tap water. Milk.

Or…we can go on down to Round Table or Mountain Mike’s, and get a pitcher. C’mon. We’ll drink responsibly, like the commercials say…and with two glasses, maybe three, I’m sure we can limp home. We’ll be there for awhile, right? Four beers over an hour or more, isn’t that okay?

You can probably see my point now. The “no beer with delivery” rule might prevent some instances of drunk driving. Clearly, it might very well be responsible for causing some. A society that is really serious about stopping it from happening, with zero tolerance, ought to at least look into the issue. We don’t.

I don’t remember if Leykis discussed that, but I do remember him talking about this: Insurance premiums. And driving school. Now, if you have a real problem with alcohol and you just can’t be persuaded to stop driving when you’re tanked, these are two big expenses that you’ll have to make room for in your budget. Why? Your lifestyle choice is an ongoing threat to entirely innocent people, and you have to be “stopped” before someone gets hurt…but these things don’t stop you. They get money out of you, they don’t stop you. Stopping you, would be: Your license is gone. If you continue to drive, we’ll take the car. If you’re caught borrowing someone else’s car, you go to prison until someone’s convinced you’re going to change your ways. Which means a life sentence, because there aren’t too many ways to demonstrate that in prison. And if you do happen to get someone killed, you’re put up against a wall and shot.

And then there are bars. Bars with parking lots. Why? If at any given time there are going to be five employees there, there should be five or six parking spots, plus maybe a space for a limo. Of course, if we were to start yanking liquor licenses from establishments that don’t want to tear up their parking lots, we’d hear a lot of protestations about “designated drivers.” This is an entirely legitimate complaint; I’d invoke it myself, and I’d have cause to do so.

But that’s the only way you justify it. And apart from the fact that the designated-driver convention has been open to, and fallen prey to, abuse — now it’s the sole justification for bars to have parking lots. I mean bars — not places where you can pick up television equipment and digital cameras and ice cream and oh by the way, we have Budweiser on tap too. Not those. Bars. Retail establishments that are there for the purpose of serving alcohol.

They have parking lots for the vendors? For the Coors company representative who wants to talk to the owner about a new contract? For the plumber to stop by when the toilets won’t flush? For people who want to drink Dr. Pepper? Give me a freakin’ break.

Those are three things just off the top of my head, that we do or don’t do — somewhat oppositional to the goal of stopping people from getting hurt or killed. If I really worked at it, I could probably keep adding to a growing list all day long.

I was born within a year of Candy Lightner’s daughter. Therefore, I’ve been able to watch the anti-drunk-driving movement blossom from it’s humble beginnings during my early adolescence, after the daughter’s tragic demise, and of course it had a direct bearing on the process to which I was subject when I was first learning to drive. I’ve been fully conscious of this for most of my mortal life, and I think I’m in a position to authoritatively state: Leykis is right. Like so many things we do that are supposed to save lives, it’s a money grab.

That’s not to say the two missions don’t overlap here & there. In the early stages of what’s called “increasing public awareness,” I think those who seek to make a profit pursue a common mission with those who seek to mitigate the danger to innocents. But once we shifted out of that phase, based on what I’ve managed to see, the public-safety objective became secondary, and tragically, random. Maybe, now that we’ve got bushels of public and private bureaucratic machinery in place that’s all expected to do one thing, but is probably engineered to do something else — the time has come to run a complete audit on all of it, every nut, bolt, screw and rivet.

Imitation is the Sincerest Form XVIII

Monday, June 4th, 2007

Quoth Thing I Know #110: which, according to my notes, popped into my head about a year ago give-or-take…

Everyone’s willing to bet an unlimited measure of resources from a company, corporation, committee, council, organization or club, that the “smartest guy in the room” really is the smartest guy in the room. Because of that, the smartest guy’s ideas usually go unopposed. I have noticed it’s extremely rare that anyone, anywhere, would bet one dime of their personal fortune that he’s really that smart. This may explain why some of the best decisions I’ve seen, were made outside of conference rooms.

I would rate this wording as medium-to-bad. But I would think the spirit of the phenomenon, is something we’ve all seen in one form or another. There’s one guy in the meeting who, when he starts a sentence, you know he’ll be allowed to finish no matter how much he rambles. It’s not his position in the organizational hierarchy, it’s — the inflection of his voice. Or not. Maybe his voice is quite squeaky and irritating. But he’s just oh so smart. He knows so much. You say it’s raining outside, “Jim” says it’s sunny, and you’re going to be the big dope even if everyone can hear the raindrops going pitter-patter on the tin roof. And as a result of this, when “Jim” talks nobody dares say anything substantial. Empty platitudes, maybe. Nothing beefy. Nothing meaty. It might conflict with something “Jim” said.

Real decisions are made. Real money is spent…but it isn’t “real” real money. It’s the company’s money, or the money placed in trust of the group. Simply put, the group is upholding a group duty to safeguard the funds — and it’s doing it badly. Individuals don’t do things this way. Individuals don’t take money, their own hard-earned money, and place it on the word of an unchecked “smart guy.” Not without someone else somewhere making sure the smart guy is right about things. But that’s how individuals work…groups work in packs, they assign a Head Dog, and they bet all the resources on what that Head Dog says whether it’s right or wrong.

SorosNow, I don’t know if Steve B. Young, TV writer and author of “Great Failures of the Extremely Successful,” reads my blog. I would think hardly anybody does. But how then do you explain this gem, which appeared this morning in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Disease of always being right
Even if you aren’t, your self-esteem demands that you think you are. And that stops learning.

It once resided largely in neighborhood bars, infecting anyone who had moved past a third beer. But today, the disorder appears to afflict every facet of our society: politicians in the aisle and on either side of it; talk-show hosts (the more famous, the worse afflicted), TV folks (Rosie O’Donnell’s View-undo was more a result of SPIRD – Smartest Person in the Room Disorder – than a contract disagreement).

It’s a baffling psychosomatic disorder because being the smartest person in the room doesn’t mean that you’re actually the smartest person in the room. Only that you believe you are. It’s not so much about being smart as feeling you’re always right.

SPIRD symptoms include, but are not limited to: thinking you have all the answers; thinking you should know all the answers; bulging forehead blood vessels; a compulsion not only to shout down your adversaries, but finally to demonize or ruin them.
:
Fact is, having SPIRD is not about being smart at all. It’s about the need to win at all costs. Winning becomes more important than being right. Alas, the tragedy is that even when you beat the guys who are right, you’re still wrong. And that isn’t winning at all.

SPIRDs are not hard to spot, mostly because they tend to carry a spotlight to shine on themselves. Truly smart people are more difficult to notice. They neither shout down nor try to defuse an adversary’s argument by turning off their mike. To do otherwise might keep them from actually learning something – which someone with SPIRD can’t do.

That’s the most deadly consequence of SPIRD: that it denies the carrier the chance to ever get any smarter. We learn, let’s face it, from our errors, and if we can’t accept that we ever make any, we’ll never, ever, ever learn.

I’ve been robbed, but I’m not calling the police. I’m quite flattered.

Of course, there’s a subtle difference in our commentaries here. Young is writing, here, about aspiring SPIRs and the antisocial excesses in which they indulge in order to reach that position. My own beef is with entrenched SPIRs. People, I’ve come to realize over the years, are going to be what they are. Being a SPIR is something someone picks up…well, I’d guess by the age of five, a child has figured out whether he or she will be a SPIR. The die has been cast.

My beef is with the group. What I’m complaining about is accountability.

You make a decision by yourself, as an executive. Some information is brought to you, and a decision must be made. There are two options — both carry risk. You select one. There is no need for a meeting. There is no SPIR. What happens if the decision turns out to be the wrong one? It’s on you. And you know this. And so, taking into account the magnitude of potential loss, and the likelihood of failure of each option, you select the one that sucks less.

Groups work differently. “Jim” talks, the group gets the impression of which option “Jim” likes better, and then that’s the one that is done. Is this not then a decision “Jim” has made individually? No. Because if it turns out to be the wrong one, nobody’s going to say “Jim” screwed up. Nobody’s going to say that — because it was a group decision. It’s not on Jim, it’s on the group.

Is the group then acting as a lightning-rod of blame for Jim’s benefit? No. What if you’re in the group, going-along to get-along, signing off on this thing “Jim” likes? Oops, it turned out to be the wrong decision. Are you going to catch hell? No. The guy who sat at the table to your left won’t catch hell. Nobody will catch hell.

So why is anybody going to put any thought into the possibility that the wrong choice is being made? They won’t. There are exceptions…someone is usually “chairing” the meeting, and that person can catch some hell. But that doesn’t really work well. This is usually a non-technical person, or a person who admittedly knows less than what needs to be known to make the decision. In situations like those, this is a big part of the justification for having the meeting. And let’s face it, the chairman didn’t make the decision…that’s not the way it will be remembered…group decisions, overall, are just things that “happened.” If they’re wrong, they aren’t the fault of anyone. They’re events.

Anyway. I’m glad to see a year later the rest of the world is finally catching up with me. Now if you don’t mind, I’m going to go have a well-earned SPIR moment of my own.

Credit for the image goes to Moonbattery.

On Atheism

Friday, May 25th, 2007

I’m not exactly brimming with skill when it comes to figuring out what a bunch of people are thinking. I’m usually among the last to do that within any given setting, and when I arrive at a conclusion about this I’m very often wrong. But there is a great deal of hard evidence around us, it seems to me, that atheism is popular lately. Hugely popular. Either that, or our atheists are getting much louder about their atheism. One way or t’other, the atheistic noise is hitting a crescendo.

Well, that’s quite alright with me. I’ve got a blog, which has my opinions about things written in it, and I’m certainly not about to upbraid someone else for coming to a conclusion about something and then voicing that conclusion. It’s exactly what I do. Should there somehow be an urgent need to condemn this by itself, I’ll take one step backward with everybody else, and let someone else volunteer to do the condemning. I’m unfit.

Having said that, though, I can’t help noticing something. The atheists I have seen lately, don’t behave the way I do. I may believe in God, but there are other things in which I don’t believe. Some of which I don’t discuss often at all.

Let’s come up with an example…the lottery. The lottery, to me, is the very embodiment of issues that are 1) decided by individuals according to their personal values, and 2) relatively insignificant, insofar as the necessity they present for winning converts. In other words, if I were to recognize a compelling need to get as many people as possible to look at the lottery the way I look at the lottery — why, I would have to get cracking. Goodness gracious. What a lot of work I’d have ahead of me. Everyone I know, I daresay, plays that damned lottery.

And I do have my little monologues to deliver on such a thing. There’s not much point to them, though, because the judgment to be made from their content, is limited to things I shall or shall not do by myself. So…I have a blog with a zillion posts in it about this-or-that, and my beliefs about the lottery don’t end up anywhere in it. Not very often, anyway.

Other people want to do something different from what I would do, because they get fun out of it. I respect that. Others really and truly think this might be the one…and I don’t see much point in trying to talk sense into them. When the office collects for the pool on Fridays, I decline politely, and quietly. Pressed for a reason, occasionally I will make up something silly about a made-up religious denomination frowning on lotteries. Anything to be left-alone on the matter. The monologues stay under wraps, until such time as someone indicates they want to hear them. And then after I recite them, the usual outcome is I’m heckled in some good-natured roasting horseshoe arrangement.

Think of Reservoir Dogs: Mister Pink doesn’t believe in tipping. It’s like that. Except I don’t talk as loud about lotteries as Steve Buscemi does about tipping.

This is not how our atheists talk about God, I notice.

Simply put, they don’t treat it as a personal decision. They treat it as a community policy decision. I mean, the loudest ones treat it that way. Consider the case of Intelligent Design from two summers ago, when President Bush went on record to say both sides should be taught in school. Both sides, meaning…evolution, and the hated Intelligent Design.

This touched off a firestorm.

Why? I dunno.

I don’t believe in the lottery, but if someone else does, fine. If they wanna teach their little sweetums’ that no weekend is complete without the purchase of one or several lottery tickets, that’s just great. Teach them in the public schools…I’m down with that, too. It wouldn’t be in the curriculum I’d put together. But hey. Takes all kinds.

See, I just don’t like to play it. I don’t think it works out in the long term. I think it’s entertainment…people should be willing to admit that’s what it is. That is all it is.

Now if I’m right about that…and the little crumb-crunchers have been taught how to think — not what to think, but how to think — eventually, they’ll come ’round to my way of thinking. If I’m wrong, well, I’m still just on the heavy side of forty. There’s still time, maybe I’ll come ’round to theirs.

But I don’t care if, in their elementary-school years, the little curtain-climbers are given a good intellectual shove off in my direction. It doesn’t matter to me one little bit.

Our atheists, laying their naturally-selected eyeballs upon an instance they might, by some stretch, be able to call “Creationism,” see a threat. Oh horrors, the next generation might not believe as we do. They act like this is some form of genocide. Simply to allow both sides.

And then they uphold themselves as the guardians of logic, while inflicting incendiary broadside attacks upon that logic. Case in point is Jerry Coyne’s essay from that tumultuous time, The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name. The point to this is that Intelligent Design is simply Creationism masquerading under a different label. And as Intelligent Design went on trial subsequently, there was ironclad evidence that this is indeed the case. Someone tried to get Creationism into the classrooms, they were struck down, and they tried again by turning Creationism into Intelligent Design.

Mmmkay. So the material was rejected because it was too Judeo-Christian, so someone made it less denominationally-flavorful and gave ‘er another go. Seems sensible to me. But Coyne’s argument is essentially that these insidious forces should be silenced forever because their intent remains the same.

Okay. But with a little bit of innocent scope creep, Coyne meanders from his mainstream argument of pure paranoia, down a bunny-trail of reason and logic and relatively solid common sense. And in crafting the argument about why we should all be so enlightened as to not hear any of this, he presents a few tidbits I personally find fascinating:

Consider the eye. Creationists have long maintained that it could not have resulted from natural selection, citing a sentence from On the Origin of Species: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” But in the next passage, invariably omitted by creationists, Darwin ingeniously answers his own objection:

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

Thus our eyes did not suddenly appear as full-fledged camera eyes, but evolved from simpler eyes, having fewer components, in ancestral species. Darwin brilliantly addressed this argument by surveying existing species to see if one could find functional but less complex eyes that not only were useful, but also could be strung together into a hypothetical sequence showing how a camera eye might evolve. If this could be done – and it can – then the argument for irreducible complexity vanishes, for the eyes of existing species are obviously useful, and each step in the hypothetical sequence could thus evolve by natural selection.

See, we’ve lost track of what the argument is about, and both sides are much better off for it. It turns out — questions about how we got here, and what the evidence has to say about how we got here and how we didn’t, are all fascinating, and endlessly complicated and involved. I think Coyne has done everybody a wonderful service by inspecting, at least at a cursory level, something about which so many other authorities would just as soon keep their silence.

Well, I’d rather know about it. And if the argument is about whether the childrunz ought to be taught all this stuff or not, I’m sold. They’ll learn not only about eyeballs and nerves, they’ll learn about people. I don’t see the downside. I know Coyne wants me to see one. But he’s made a compelling, bulletproof case that President Bush was right. If the proposal were not on the table for both sides to be taught, I wouldn’t have learned this fascinating stuff.

One thing though. “If this could be done – and it can – then the argument for irreducible complexity vanishes…” This is a mishandling of logic, and it’s kind of disturbing that a University of Chicago professor would indulge in it. Although I suppose we all are human and we all have our prejudices.

Prof. Coyne, here, is transgressing against Blogger friend Phil’s Thing I Know #6: “The mere fact that plausible argument can be made does not mean that its conclusion is valid.” Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say, if Intelligent Design were an ineluctable conclusion prior to the investigation of these variations-of-eyeballs, then after such investigations, it no longer is.

That would be a clumsy wording. But it would be accurate. Prof. Coyne will have none of it, though. In his world, the argument has vanished. Should an argument be friendly to his side of things, once such an argument is shown to be plausible, this is as good as proof.

It’s simply not a healthy way to noodle things out. And in Ann Coulter’s book from a year ago, Godless, this is the chink in the Darwin armor that she exploits mercilessly throughout the final third of it.

But if a lot of people want to run around, coloring outside the lines of Phil’s Thing I Know #6, I think we can survive that. To rigidly pursue the finer rules of logic to the extent you can learn about why we’re here and how the world works, that is a completely different thing from figuring out how to put your pants on one leg at a time. Scientists should follow science. Non-scientists can do what they want.

But the other trend is mighty disturbing. People who do not believe in God…lately…have begun to apply intelligence tests to strangers. Pass-fail intelligence tests. You are a blithering idiot if you believe in the “Sky Fairies.” And if you’re a good, righteous, straight and true atheists — one must restrain onesself from tossing in “God-fearing” — then maybe you have something working between your ears.

It is a breathtakingly simple illustration of circular reasoning, with a little bit of third-grade playground name-calling thrown in. There can be no God, because everyone who believes in Him is a stupid chucklehead. And I know they are stupid chuckleheads, because they believe in God.

Based on what I’ve seen, even that summation goes beyond the “logic” atheists have been using to arrive at their atheism. I have to confess, I nurse strong doubts about logic having anything to do with it.

If I were pressed to comment on a cause for this widespread atheism, I blame video games.

I think the atheists were once children, and their childhoods were filled with Sundays. It was time to go to church, they had to put down the controller and go to church, and they just didn’t wanna. Conflict arose. And they became atheists.

That’s as complicated as it gets. I can’t prove it. But I’m convinced.

If, when video games were starting to hit their stride in the early nineties…back then, you were about thirteen years old — you are twenty-seven or twenty-eight now. This is the face of the twenty-first century atheist. He’s a grown-up child who didn’t want to hit “save” and stop playing Super Mario 64 long enough to go to church for an hour or two. And this has molded and shaped his perception of whether there is a God or not. Eyeballs and finch beaks have nothing to do with it. Coyne, preaching to his choir, might have saved himself the trouble and avoided all that hard science; they don’t care.

They want what they want when they want it. They like beer, Cheese-Whiz straight outta the can, Gears Of War, and as much sex as they can get.

Simply put, God hasn’t seen fit to show what He can bring to the table in bringing them all that stuff.

Which is perfectly okay by me. I just wish our video-game atheists would abstain from believing in God — quietly — just as I abstain from buying lottery tickets. Because if I understand the overall argument correctly…it has something to do with everyone living their lives as they see fit, without interference from others. Right?

Seven Lies I Was Told

Sunday, May 20th, 2007

In explaining to Buck, and anyone else wondering the same thing, how it is that I do my blogging…I made reference to the first triad of the nine pillars of persuasion. This traid consists of facts, opinions/inferences and things to do. Navigating through these is a skill. It is an individual skill, not a collectivist skill. In the latter part of the twentieth century, it assumed the veneer of becoming a collectivist skill, because when people navigated through these three pillars as part of a group, they became very loud. People like Walter Cronkite and Peter Jennings and Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw would broadcast the results of these deliberations, and other people who were not Cronkite or Jennings et al, would tune in to find out what to think. And before you knew it, everyone who had a television set, would stop doing this work on their own.

That is a crude summary. But it’s pretty accurate.

This is the malaise from which blogs are rescuing us. People aren’t perfect, after all. Look at it this way. You watch the news, all the way through the 1990’s. And every other year, something is going on with Saddam Hussein. Saddam is violating his no-fly zone. Saddam is oppressing people. Saddam Hussein is supposed to be showing weapons inspectors this room or that room, and he’s refusing to do it…and getting away with it. Not good. Congress is going to back off of impeaching President Clinton because there’s trouble going on with Saddam Hussein. Great, so now we have a liar governing the country, and we can’t do anything about it because of you-know-who.

And being a well-informed consumer of news, you think to yourself, what a colossal asshole. Someone needs to take care of that Saddam Hussein.

But here’s where the human frailty comes in. By the close of 2003, someone has come along to take care of Saddam Hussein, and you are instructed to believe it was all about stealing oil and getting revenge for a death threat on someone’s daddy. As human beings, we have brains that are wired…whether we like it or not…to think as part of a large group. The “group” says “eh, this was based on lies and Saddam Hussein was never a threat to us” — the natural inclination of your brain, is to hop on board. Uh yeah, whatever that other guy said.

This is where blogs can save the human race. I mean that literally. Save the human race, from our own failings. You’re reading a blog, like this one…and I say something like “You know what? I don’t think this asshole was harmless. I think Saddam Hussein was a punk-bitch and a menace and a loose cannon — and not only that, but I distinctly recall our democrat President saying exactly that.” And you think to yourself…hey, how that he mentions it, I remember that too.

Before blogs, the bandwagon-viewpoint receives an amplifier, the challenge does not. After blogs, both sides must be amplified. And therefore, they must both receive a fair hearing. It’s simply a superior forum in which to weigh competing ideas.

Ah, but who is to say that a blog is not the disease, rather than the cure? Well, the blog is written in hypertext. Which supports, and encourages, links to things. So the blog can link to things to support the viewpoint under discussion. Like in this case, the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA) of 1998. As approved by the House of Representatives, and as signed by President Clinton.

Haven’t seen Katie Couric do anything like that, have you?

We have to have this. We HAVE TO. You know why? Because when people who are paid good money to swagger, and use other primitive body-language techniques to drum up a phony sense of authority, they can sound like they really know what they’re talking about…while they’re peddling bullshit. This is true of the blogs as well. If I know how to write really well, I can make a stupid idea look sensible. But the thing is — if I do that, and someone disagrees with me, he can put up a blog showing how full of crap I am.

That is simply not true of six o’clock evening news broadcasts.

And it isn’t true of editorials in your local paper. It’s supposed to be. But it isn’t. You catch your local paper in a lie, or other kind of falsehood…you write a letter to the editor. Maybe they’ll publish it, maybe they won’t.

If you caught them in a lie they really, really want to sell…they won’t publish your letter.

In this area, blogs win. Hands down. You’re a blogger, I’m a blogger, I peddle some crap and you catch me at it, you can write me up. Your comments will be found by any blog-reader who wants to find them. Including some critically-thinking individuals who read my comments, and thought to themselves “I wonder if there’s another side to this?” Let’s face it — if Tom Brokaw or Katie Couric tell you some kind of nonsense, and you’re skeptical about it, you can’t scrape through the crap unless you do some work. Nowadays that means Google. In times past, when Brokaw was actually on the air, it was a trip to your local library. That’s just to verify/refute what Mr. Brokaw said. Not terribly realistic.

The reason this is such an important improvement, is that it’s not such a terribly unique experience to be told lies about things. Even highly-successful lies. I would venture to say, it’s far more of a rarity to be on the receiving end of a homeless guy’s shakedown sales pitch, than it is to be on the receiving end of one of these lies. In fact I’ll go even further.

There are seven lies to which we’ve all been subjected. All of us. At least, those of us who attended public school in the last forty years. Those seven lies are listed below. Since becoming a grown-up I’ve found all seven things to be ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

1. Republicans and Democrats want to get the same things done but have different ideas of how to go about doing it.

If you were writing fiction about the times in which we live, and had taken it upon yourself to include a passage about a teacher telling her class this crock o’crap, you’d probably excise the passage as soon as you had sobered up again. How could you possibly elborate on this, after all? What, for example, are these common goals toward which Republicans and donks are supposed to be laboring? What? There’s no substantial answer to such a question…and it is the single most rudimentary question to be posed.

Oh, I suppose a generation ago you could have defined the common ground as “increase the standard of living of most Americans.” How ’bout now? Quick– how does our left-wing want to increase the standard of living of most Americans? Name a strategy…something that doesn’t benefit the management of a labor union. Clock is ticking!

No, there isn’t anything left. How many things do you want that you can’t have yet? Get a nicer car? Take your family on more vacations? Just install a nicer refrigerator in your kitchen? Think of ten, and I’ll bet eight of them would result in increased carbon emissions. You know what Al Gore has to say about that. Shame on you.

So no. We have people…we have labor unions. One party is for one, the other party is for the other. PERIOD. Republicans and Democrats are not about the same goals. They aren’t even about the same ways of thinking, as I pointed out last summer in What Is A Liberal? You stand up for your own interests, think for yourself in doing so, and you’re contradicting the liberal agenda in a way liberals will not soon forgive. You can’t even fight to defend your country, municipality or family anymore. Not without their opposition you can’t. They have become the Not Worth Defending ideology.

2. Women can do everything men can do.

This one is so silly it is NAO, or Not Articulated Outright. But the arguments that depend upon it, you are no longer allowed to challenge. The arguments that would inflict assault upon it in some way, you are not allowed to support. Not without paying a social price. Not in public.

But…haven’t women achieved an amazing amount of stuff lately? Haven’t they set all kinds of records? Of course they have. Women have done all kinds of things for the very first time. Over and over again, from Danica Patrick to Nancy Pelosi, we’ve had a glut of women being the very first woman to do…something lots and lots of men have already done. To name a certain feat, and witness the first humanoid to achieving it, boasting a pair of tits and a verginer — that seems to be an event for which nobody holds out any hope any longer. That used to be the feminist dream, but no more. Women, now, settle for declaring victory after they’ve trudged along in a trail already blazed by men. Blazing the trail in spiked heels, is an abandoned dream. Whose idea was it to give up on that? I must be a radical feminist, because I wouldn’t have supported that.

But now, when you hear about the “first woman” to do X, rest assured. A bazillion guys have already done X. Lately, there’s no exception to this.

I hasten to add, however, that X need not be anything I personally have done. That is not my point. My point is simply this: When people say, or imply, or attempt to convince others, that women are just as effective doing certain things as the equivalent man — they are full of crap. Sometimes, thankfully, aware of how much crap of which they are full. Not always.

Men can write their names in the snow. Men can refill a car battery after all the electrolytes have leaked out. Men can inseminate, and have fun doing it, without complicated medical procedures. Men can invent things; yes, I know all about windshield wipers. Fact is, you find something a woman invented, I can show you a couple hundred things men invented, maybe more. No, it isn’t because the patent office discriminates. The simple fact of the matter is, the inventor’s brain is invested in the male skull. You do something out of the ordinary, against convention, and if your wife is around she’ll say — that’s not the right way to do it. Emphasis on the words the and right…not on way and do. It seems if the gals have us beat in something, it’s in figuring out convention, and following it. Reading the instruction manual, as it were.

Well, the wife is right of course. But the fact of the matter is, this is antithetical to inventing things. You simply can’t come up with new and improved ways of doing things, while busting your ass trying to do things the way they’ve always been done. Those are two different endeavors.

Here’s the irony though: If you are open to respecting what’s special about men, you can respect what is special about women. If you’ve got your mind made up there’s no point to having men around, you can’t appreciate the advantages to having women around either. And then the human species, men & women alike, becomes pointless. So I would characterize this one as being not only false, but unhelpful. In the extreme.

3. War is a consequence of people not putting enough time and effort into talking out their problems.

In my lifetime, all the wars I’ve been able to “witness” starting, involved two or more sides who seemed to understand each other just fine. Prior to my lifetime, the wars I’ve read about seem to have started under similar circumstances. I really can’t think of too many wars that started from a genuine misunderstanding, perceived or otherwise. Actually, not even one. I doubt anyone else can, either.

4. The Indians were kind to their own elders, and to the land, before we stole America from them.

This varies from tribe to tribe on the native-American side, as well as country-to-country on the European side. But the evidence seems to indicate no significant disparity in the level of concern and care extended to the environment, between Europeans and natives. With regard to “stealing the land” — there are challenges involved in defining this when the “invading” culture is the only one that understands the concept of a man or group of men owning a patch of land. Both sides were not sold on this concept. Therefore — and this is where logic has to be applied to the situation, and it’s not a comfortable process — were the process to be repeated a thousand times in a thousand different parallel universes, the problems and the bloodshed and the SNAFUs would have been repeated a thousand times. All these things were inevitable.

This is not to say the white guys did everything right. Before and after America came to exist, the things that were done to the Indians were quite reprehensible. But the simplicity involved in retelling these tales to the current generations, runs into a problem best articulated in Thing I Know #207: Dismiss all anecdotes and parables containing these three things: A hero who can do nothing wrong, a villain who can do nothing right, and a setting in which all events are hearsay and can never be validated first- or second-hand. You’re being snookered. Count on it. Doesn’t have to do with denigrating red people are defending white people. It has to do with plain ol’ critical thinking. Good Indians…bad white guys…real life just isn’t that simple. It simply isn’t.

5. Sen. Joseph McCarthy ruined hundreds of lives rooting out “communists” that never existed.

Google the Venona Project. Then read about it.

Over and over again, we hear about these lives being ruined without anyone taking the effort to list names. Occasionally an authority is pressed to provide such a list, and the results are invariably disappointing.

We simply should never have been putting up with this.

6. Democracy isn’t a perfect form of government, but it’s the best there has ever been because decisions are made to the satisfaction of majority rule.

Not only is a pure democracy an abuse of the basic rights of the minority, but it turns out those who founded America desired no such thing. Read Federalist Paper #10, among others.

7. In our hearts, we are all the same.

I just don’t know what to say about this one. I think I understand that people want other people to be more tolerant of yet-other people, who happen to have different colors of skin. I think that’s the intent. But the statement is flat-ass false. I would have to say it was rather soundly disproved on September 11, 2001. Many among us persist in believing it. I don’t know why, you’ll have to ask them.

The Blog That Nobody Reads

Wednesday, May 16th, 2007

LogoWelcome to my humble blog. The FAQ will answer any questions that you…well actually, on this point I can’t make any sort of promise. The FAQ answers what it wants to answer and then it comes to an abrupt stop, without apology. What an impudent little FAQ. But nonetheless, if you’re wondering where you are and would rather spend a minute or two trying to find out, than navigating away with a simple mouse-click — the FAQ is the place to go.

This is The Blog That Nobody Reads. When it started, that was really true; now, it has something of a following, which is divided right down the middle. A large bulk of the audience thinks that’s a stupid catchphrase and urges me to drop it post haste, and the remainder finds it titillating. The consensus among them is they wish they had thought of it first. As if they were collaborating behind the scenes somewhere, they have all chosen to honor some strange virtual trademark thought to be registered to myself. Well…okay. The blogosphere, or some tiny portion of it, chooses to think of it as my brainchild. My intellectual property. Well, I think of myself as undeserving. I’m honored.

It’s not a tidbit of self-depcrecating humor; “The Blog That Nobody Reads” reflects intent, or to be more precise, lack of intent. We aren’t attention whores here. There is good reason why we are not. It hasn’t escaped our notice over the past several years, that some of the doctrines of belief most assured to draw attention to those who hold them, like moths to flame, are the ones that are wombat-rabies bollywonkers crazy. Silly, paranoid things. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was completely harmless. President Bush knew that planes were about to be crashed into the World Trade Center and did nothing about it. There is no terrorist threat. Fire never melted steel before September 11, 2001. Violence is a direct and predictable result of poverty and hunger. Maybe you’ve heard this one lately: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the middle class gets “squeezed out.”

You know. Stupid, self-delusional crap, upon which no sane man would gamble anything important to him, under any circumstances. Forget his own testicles. Forget his limbs. Forget his children. Think of…the steam off his own excrement. Think of pocket lint. Ideas that aren’t even worth that. This is the nonsense under which people place their virtual signatures, when they whore for attention on the World Wide Web.

This is not just humorous and harmless. It ias actually terribly dangerous. You say crap to get attention — much sooner than you think it could possibly happen, the crap gets much, much crappier. And you start to believe it yourself.

We prefer to win that game by refusing to play. We say stuff, here, that makes sense. Stuff we believe. Stuff on which we would place bets.

And to ensure we remain firmly entrenched in that mode, we loudly announce — and celebrate — our complete apathy as to whether anybody is paying attention.

That is why we are The Blog That Nobody Reads.

It should be obvious by now, we do not mean this as a slight toward the people who do bother to read. We are grateful to all of them, and most especially, to our regulars whom we consider to be close friends. If there is a purpose to blogging, we consider this to be it: Making friends. Phil. Duffy. Good Lieutenant. The Bartender. Karol. Misha. Alan. Jeff. Rick. David. Daniel. John D. Infidel. “aup”. Most of these folks have me “blogrolled” or “sidebar’d” as something like “must-read” or “daily-read” or “better than the average blog” or some such. I wonder if they understand what a jaw-dropping and heartstopping compliment this is; words, as the saying goes, fail to express. And then there are the folks getting some kind of group-collaboration project off the ground, making me some unofficial “staff” type person. James. Mike. John Rambo. And, although he is much more a hero to me than any kind of real peer — Gerard, who in my eyes is some sort of living legend. If you were to thaw out a literary giant from the eighteenth century, and somehow coerce him into teaching you how to write, you’d have to adjust the advice to fit the twenty-first century. Gerard is here, now, for free, for the benefit of anyone who chooses to pay attention. He talks, I stop what I’m doing and I listen. To me, Gerard Van der Leun didn’t just hang the moon, he built it out of his own two hands and then he took up a great big machete and hacked out a place to put it. He doesn’t need to acknowledge me, I consider it an honor for which I’d pay richly, just to read his stuff.

And then…then, there is Buck.

Buck Pennington is an interesting case. His personality seems to have a lot in common with mine, except he’s an older retired fellow, with a military background, and interests in things that have not yet captured my attention, like photography. I see him as a true “peer,” sharing both my strengths and my weaknesses. I’ll leave that unexplored, since to graphically explore Mr. Pennington’s weaknesses seems to be an example of rudeness he does not deserve, nevermind that I share them; and to inventory our strengths, strikes me as a failure of modesty on my part. Suffice to say he matches me item for item in both columns. He’s always impressed me as an older “carbon copy,” like if I were to travel forward in time and visit myself, I should not be surprised to find something eerily close to him. But more to the point, his blog has become an interesting place to visit for anyone, whether you’re trading links with him or not. He’s nurtured a very pleasing balance between personal anecdotes, and unique viewpoints on the very latest news. I’ve watched his site slowly evolve into a place where I genuinely look forward to giving him a hit, without a thought about his Sitemeter traffic, just to find out what’s going on over there. If I don’t get around to it, the day is missing something. This is a real accomplishment in Bloggerland — the very highest. And I get the impression he’s doing all this without trying.

Buck has asked a question I think is interesting, and I hope a large number of bloggers take the trouble to try to answer it. The question is: How do you blog?

What if one percent of the blogosphere sat down and provided a thorough, honest answer? What if we had blogs a hundred years ago, and such an event took place? What an amazing book that would be. Think about it. HOw many episodes of “American Idol” would you sacrifice just to thumb through such a book, for thirty seconds or so?

What a fascinating book that would be.

Let me repeat. What a fascinating book. Here we are, and we have the chance to write such a thing. To write it. How lucky we are. What have you got going on, that truly deserves postponing such a thing, for even a minute. Really. Is it some sense of modesty? Surely you must understand, this doesn’t count. If you are a blogger, right now, in 2007, you are toiling away in the eye of a tempest that is sure to change the world. You think future generations care nothing about the thoughts between your left ear and your right one. Why do you think such a thing? What would you give to read what a person such as you, thought about things like this, a century ago?

You are — we all are — worth a great deal more than you think. It won’t hurt anything to take the time to jot things down.

So here’s my take.

To me, it starts with a vision. I write for a blog read by, in theory, nobody. So I’m not going to whore out my ideas, saying outlandish things just to get someone to write me up so I can appear in People Magazine. No, I’m just going to jot down my ideas. My reactions. Something happened, or someone said something about something that happened. I have a reaction, and I’m going to jot it down.

At this point, I should scribble down an example. I’ve got a great one in mind.

Barbra Streisand says we should all do our part to fight global warming by hanging up our laundry to dry in the breeze. I think she’s nuts. If I jot down that and nothing more, what I’m jotting down is simply…a vote. Some of us think Barbra Streisand is a real American icon, others of us think she’s a wonderful entertainer but her opinions aren’t worth squat. Still others of us can’t understand how she ever got to be famous in the first place. And others think she’s a craven hypocrite. I don’t think it does anyone any good to simply pick something out of that list, jot some words down around it, and move on. That would be silly. Other folks would agree, others would disagree…what’s the point? Someone coming along to tabulate everything? No, nobody’s doing any such thing.

So if there’s a purpose involved in reacting to Barbra’s statement, the purpose would have to do with exchanging ideas. First thought in my head is, is Barbra hanging up her own clothes. And if she isn’t, she’s a hypocrite. Okay, if I put that on the Internet, folks come by and read it. If they disagree, they have my e-mail address. That’s useful — perhaps there’s another angle to this, and I’ve neglected to consider it. Clearly, it’s far more productive, and a better discipline, to put my ideas out there where they can be seen by others, than to stew in my juices and just nurse vindictive feelings against some spoiled Hollywood starlet.

But a lot of the disagreement about Ms. Streisand has to do with values. If you think she’s a hypocrite, it’s unlikely a new piece of information can change your mind…and the same goes for the folks who think Streisand is some kind of modern-day Messiah. To them, she can say whatever she wants, get busted doing whatever she will…and her star will never lose any luster. It all has to do with personal values.

Which means if someone comes along, reads my stuff, and says “Right on!” — maybe they share some of my values. Maybe not. But they probably do. And if they take the time to write, then this is the beginning of what’s called a friendship. At least, most of the time.

Values are big with me. There are some folks who don’t share mine, there are others who do. I don’t think I’m in the minority quite yet. I don’t think my side is even headed there. Or maybe my side really is an underdog and I don’t know. Either way, I will say this — I do think people who have my values, need to stick together. Anybody who shares ’em, I’d like to know about them.

But I don’t have just moral values; I have intellectual values too. I think information should be handled a certain way. I think people who think and talk about what they think, have obligations to keep track of what they know and what they don’t. “Barbra Streisand is the worst sort of hypocrite” — of course I’m perfectly entitled to think that. I’m perfectly entitled to have that viewpoint without basing it on any facts. But at the same time, that would be wrong. If I think the lady is a hypocrite, I should say why. Or, at the very least, I ought to know. A real man thinks things, and he knows why he thinks the things he thinks. It’s as simple as that.

And so — pretty much just for the heck of it, you might say — I jot down what I think, and why I think the things I think. Most of the time I can’t prove the things that help me decide the things I think…most of the time, they are things I’ve been forced to conclude, based on what’s likely and what’s not likely. Proof is a luxury I don’t have. Life, you will find, is almost always like that. I would venture to say that over the last five years, we have seen this bite our own current President square in the ass. Sometimes, you don’t know a thing is so, but at the same time you don’t know it is not so. Sometimes — a lot of the time — a thing may very well be true and at the same time, it might not be true. And you are required to act on faith…and the best judgment you can muster. You are required to, in effect, gamble, whether you’ve a fancy for gambling or not.

I submit that this is what being a grown-up is all about. Doing what you want…or doing something in response to what you want to have going on, as opposed to what the evidence says is really going on…this is the domain of children. Grown-ups take in evidence, figure out what it means, and find a way to make the most of it, or to minimize the damage.

And so when I blog, all I’m really doing is opening up the hood on my grown-up engine, showing the workings as it spins away. What do I know? What do I not know? Based on what I know and what I do not know, what do I think about what is going on? And…based on what I think is going on, what do I want to do?

And this is why the blog is called House of Eratosthenes. This is why the logo of the site resembles a crude pictogram resembling a water well, with the midday sun shining through it all the way to the bottom. You see evidence of something — based on this, you devise an experiment, and you gather data from that experiment. Based on that data, you figure out what is going on. Eratosthenes himself did this, and figured out not only that the world was round, but exactly how round it was. With pinpoint accuracy, relatively speaking. That is what we try to do here. That is why we call ourselves House of Eratosthenes.

So when we blog here, we look through something…usually, although not always, the headlines in the news. Based on what is going on in the news, we form an argument. Not just the rustic definition of the word “argument,” but a composite thing that includes all of the vital elements. There are three such elements and here in The Blog That Nobody Reads, we call them the Vitals. We call them the First Triad of the nine Pillars of Persuasion, and you can follow the links to the glossary if you care to figure out what exactly they are.

Now, a lot of the time the navigation through the three pillars in the vitals, should be self-explanatory. That happens pretty frequently. In that case my own ramblings are decidedly second-rate on a scale of importance. In which case I say something like “Meh,” with a link to the story that I think is important. Posts like those are pretty short. I think of these kinds of posts as the very latest in bookmarking technology, and believe me since the Internet has come to be what it is, I’ve tried everything. I have recorded Internet addresses in text files. In Microsoft Word files. In Internet Explorer bookmarks. In Palm Pilot databases. They are all…each and every one of them…just like pieces of precious driftwood that I spot, as I float on down the river that is cyberspace, in some virtual canoe. If the driftwood is worth something, I must haul it aboard, or at the very least capture the place where I spotted it.

I think it’s fair to say at this point — no device, save for the humble blog, has worked out for me.

I create a post that says “Look at what this asshole said,” or “Pffft,” or “Geez!” or — something that has an amazing essay written around it. And from that day forward, I have it. Years later, I may look for it…and, one way or another, I’m going to find it. I can’t honestly say that about the text files or the Word files or the Palm Pilot database records.

Mmmmkay, there we have another reasons why we are The Blog That Nobody Reads. If nobody reads us, we still have a purpose. Through blogging, we manage to remember things…things we’ve not managed to remember any other way. Not long-term.

But that is how we record bookmarks. Sometimes…the post you’re reading now, case-in-point…we opine at great length. Tediously. I have been instructed to believe this has no value to anyone, anywhere, at any time. And yet I can’t help noticing — when people “grab” my stuff, give me credit for it, post it someplace where it receives significant attention — some might say an amazing, spellbinding level of attention — they don’t grab the nibbles. They don’t grab the tidbits. They grab the monster essays.

Buck wants to know how I, or rather we, blog. I am going to have to assume he’s asking about the monster essays. Nobody has anything good to say about my monster essays, but that is what people capture. That is what they link.

How does the House of Eratosthenes…The Blog That Nobody Reads…put together a Godzilla-sized essay. Actually, it takes no effort at all. I wish it did.

Good manners dictate that I skip over the first third of it. I have my baggage from the past; my inner demons. Little bits of myself, that aren’t completely at peace with other bits of myself…we should leave it at that. Lying in a peaceful slumber in the middle of the night, intertwined with the body of a woman who is far too good for me but who nonetheless spends her time in my company, now and then I become conscious of the demons churning away. Ghosts of persons no longer with us, some of whom I knew intimately, some of whom were mere strangers, all of whom I should have treated better than I did, and are now gone forever. Like Scrooge, I rise in the middle of the night and I’m unable to lie still. And eventually I stumble out of bed, my body weary but my mind on fire.

Perhaps the dead are visiting me in my dreams, and I can’t remember. But it is two in the morning, and a gorgeous naked woman is slumbering in the next room, richly deserving of my embrace until the eastern horizon turns orange. She deserves this, and I long to give it to her, but on occasion I cannot. Simply put, it is a case of insomnia. A bad one. I don’t like it. I’m trying to make a life with someone, who is ready to make a sacrifice I cannot match. I think she understands this, and I think she is hoping one day I will be able to do what I currently cannot. Tomorrow is another day. For now, I am wide awake, and it is two in the morning…

This is how I write. There is the matter of tools I use. There’s an awful lot of stuff going on in the world, and not a day passes by where something important hasn’t clicked, somewhere, or at least someone really important has said something revealing. We have people who track that stuff, and it’s a full-time job. Granted, the fact that collectively they end up doing it very badly, is what gives the humble blog a purpose. But the fact remains. It is a full-time job. I don’t have time for it all.

So I have to find a way to filter through it, making sure I don’t pluck out a few little dirt clods out of the pile and leaving the gold nuggets untouched. So I have a “big queue” and a “little queue,” the latter being a filtration of the former. You get to read the more elite, pristine one. The larger queue is the rough, unfinished stuff, the things I have time to scribble down just a one- or two-liner about, and consider at a later time for “publication.” This one is for my eyes only.

It must follow me wherever I go, so I use Google Documents for that. This has turned out to be a very helpful tool. The docs are web-based, they follow me around wherever I am, and they auto-save. So I have a large text document that is my scroll. Something interesting happens, I jot down a line about what it is, and save the link. Then I move on. This has been a life-saver, literally; it allows me to have a life.

How do I type in the stuff? There is a fellow at work named James whom I could most accurately describe as a grown-up hippie. Like me, he is a programmer. One day in the break room, he caught me and happened to make mention of this program called ConText. I’m using it to write this now; it is not a word processor, it is a programmer’s editor. You can get it here.

I start with the word wrap turned off. That way, every odd-numbered line is a paragraph, nevermind how long the paragraphs are. I write, and I write, and I write some more. YOu know the funny part of it? After I’m done writing, it’s like the blood rushes into a wholly different part of my brain lobes, from what was throbbing away while I was doing the writing. It’s as if I drifted off into a deep sleep, and Rumplestiltskin himself broken in and typed a bunch of crap, leaping out the window just as I woke up again. I swear, sometimes I’ll be reading my own stuff half-an-hour after I wrote it, and I’ll bust out laughing at a joke as if someone else wrote it. I honestly don’t understand it. It’s like some rejuvenated spirit of a long-dead ancient warrior took over my body and actually did the writing, while I did some more dozing.

And then, I hit Shift+Control+W to turn word wrap back on, and see the article the way my readers will see it. I add the links in. And then I add the pictures in. The pictures are no big deal, they’re hosted through ImageShack — and then they’re imposed over the text through simple HTML 3.0 commands. That’s it.

You see, there really isn’t much more to it than that. I’m just some guy who writes stuff, who knows what he knows and knows why it is that he knows it. Zoning out, as if he were strung out on acid or something. But not. Just rattling away on his girlfriend’s wireless keyboard, buck-ass naked, while she slumbers away buck-ass naked in a warm bed where my buck-ass naked body should be. And will be, at about three-o’clock. But for now, it’s only one-thirty. It’ll be light outside in a few hours, and the mad dash will be on to drag my ass into work in a frantic dog-eat-dog data center environment.

For now, though, things are relaxed. Things are clear. Tortured, yes…I am haunted by ghosts. Things I wish I had done differently. I am indebted to persons living and dead, but at least I have some sense of perspective. As the sun swings freely of the horizon in a few hours, I will lose that perspective and I will no longer be tortured. Life will, once again, redefine itself as an endless, pointless, wait in line at the local Starbuck’s. For the time being, although I am awake and I know I should not be, and sin hangs around my neck like a dead albatross, and in my own way I am tortured like Prometheus upon the rock, at least I understand the debt I owe to persons no longer with us. I see things as they really are. In twelve hours, I will be filing out of cubicle-land, with nine hours of flourescent lights absorbed in my body. Life, then, will achieve maximum distortion — it will look like a journey to a grocery store with a shopping list, and events leading up to that. That’s half a day from now. For now, I understand perspective. I understand people laid down their lives, so that I could live, and have things, and I owe them a debt I can never repay. And I can only hope to begin to repay such a debt, by doing my bit to make sure the next generation, also, sees things as they really are. Twelve hours from now, that will be blurry and unclear. For the time being, things are very, very clear. Painfully so.

I might as well write about it.

That’s all.

I am e-mailing this to some of you. I’m thinking if you were to forward it on to someone else who blogs, nothing bad could come from it, and perhaps something wonderful, will. How about give it a try?

As The Seals Are Broken

Thursday, May 10th, 2007

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

— Revelation of Christ to John, 6:12-17 (KJV)

If I were The Devil and it was my mission to bring about the end of the world, I would do it one baby step at a time. I would see to it that every generation of mankind is capable of doing less than the generation that came before, and has less a sense of perspective about what’s important.

I would bring about Armageddon, as the fulfillment of a desire people held in their own hearts, being unaware themselves that the desire was there. I would do what I can to make the human race look in the mirror, and see a loathsome, entirely expendable thing, unworthy of attention, maintenance or most of all, defense. Drop by drop, ounce by ounce, inch by inch.

It occurs to me that this is exactly what has been taking place. We all like to talk a good game about wanting to help each other, but lately there’s been a huge push for everyday folks to aspire toward being noticed and being watched. This has supplanted or subordinated all other desires. Making life easier for others, or building things that would make someone’s life easer, is decidedly passe. Maybe if someone takes the time to figure out what’s coming down the pike that we haven’t quite seen yet, sort of get ahead of this downslide if you will, we’ll be able to see how steady and predictable this is. So here’s my shot at it.

How long do we have to wait until…

1. Everybody is in entertainment, or nothing at all. Nothing is produced. Nothing is fixed. We sing and dance, we clean the toilets of those who sing and dance, we deliver bottled water to them, we advertise for them, or we do nothing. In short, the point to our existence, for those of us who still have one, is to get attention for ourselves or for somebody else.
2. It is tolerated, and commonplace, for new mothers to be talking on their cell phones during the delivery. Better than even odds the doctor is on a cell phone too. “Me? Aw, nuthin’. Delivering a baby. What’re you doin’?”
3. Objects seem important when they possess attributes, and gender is an attribute. Gender must therefore disappear. Men wear cowboy hats, and goatees…and sundresses. So do the ladies.
4. There is a sequel to the Dukes of Hazzard. It is a “reboot.” Daisy Duke is now Duke Duke, a guy who runs around in a thong all day every day, works as a waiter in a gay bar, and drives a little white jeep named “Dixie.” Beau and Luke are now Bee and Lara, a couple of hard-driving ass-kicking ozark women. Uncle Jesse is a pre-op transgender. The General Lee has been renamed the Secretary-General Annan.
5. Sacrifice becomes ceremonial and loses all substance and meaning. Already you can buy a carbon credit, sponsoring someone else to conserve, so you don’t have to. Tomorrow you can buy a virtual carbon credit. You would essentially be paying someone to think about buying a carbon credit, so you don’t have to think about doing that.
6. As we trivialize boundaries that ought to be given more respect, we are divided across differences that ought not matter. A new U.S. Mint is opened that prints special money for gay people. Every time someone finds a vending machine that still takes only “straight” money, there are protests and candlelight vigils.
7. 60 Minutes does a piece on people who live in East Pennsylvania who are so poor they put signs in their cars that say “Car Radio Already Stolen.” Congress passes a law that all motorists with working sound equipment must put up signs that say “Audio Equipment Not Stolen Yet.” The inventory of said audio equipment is to be printed alongside, and is required to be kept accurate and complete. This is enforced through random inspections.
8. People decide for themselves whether their ways of living are helpful to the poor, facts be damned. Barbra Streisand shakes down the homeless population to buy her next mansion because she can’t afford it herself.
9. The media becomes more and more emboldened in giving us instructions on how to vote. Already, it has become routine to blindside Republican candidates with some silly question about how much milk costs, and take a pass on doing the same to the democrats. I see a future where infrared technology is used to measure greenhouse gas emission and power consumption at the Republican convention of ’08. An expose — government-funded, of course — broadcasts the results of this. No corresponding hit piece against the democrats, or any other party holding a convention. Nobody questions any of this.
10. The Fairness Doctrine is restored. Rush Limbaugh is forced to let Al Franken guest-host his show 50% of the time. His ratings start to look like Air America’s. He retires. Franken takes over the entire show, demands huge salary, EIB Network files for bankruptcy, capitalism is pronounced a failure.
11. Technology continues to expand, ostensibly for the purpose of bringing us information more quickly, but in reality, to service our growing demand for more attention. Cell phones can “message” live, high-quality moving pictures. You don’t have to go on American Idol anymore. You can phone in performances along with votes. This becomes so popular that new houses have universal cell phone “tripods” built in to the childrens’ bedrooms.
12. Disability becomes strength. There are pills available to give you a disability if you’re tired of being too normal and therefore failing to qualify for special treatment other people routinely receive in contracting, admissions and hiring. The pills are color-coded according to what disability you want. There is an ADD pill, a race pill, a stupid pill, a cocaine withdrawal pill, a homosexual pill, a Tourettes pill. The ACLU sues the pill company on behalf of the color-blind.
13. Parenthood continues it’s decline, and evolution into a needlessly-painful institution. Producers of kids’ television cartoons decide to come clean and make a show called, “Just Tune In And Give Your Parents A Migraine.” It has no plot, no story, no characters, no voices, not even any pictures. It just emits an annoying buzz. Oh, and when you tune to this channel your volume setting automatically goes all the way up, your power locked on, your channel frozen in place.
14. Mankind continues to envision “peace” as a commodity, with no price attached, free for the asking, unconditionally. All branches of the Department of Defense are closed, except a brand-new “Peace Division.” Boot camp in this branch: Learning to cry, fingerpainting, nap time, puppet shows, sensitivity training. The mission: Invading underdeveloped countries filled with poverty-stricken people, and teaching them how to…form labor unions, tax capital gains, and oppose the death penalty.
15. Work continues to be attacked, and denigrated into pointlessness. More things, staples and luxuries alike, are available with or without work. You have a right to gas. You have a right to toothpaste and deoderant. You have a right to food. Naturally, if you’re stubborn enough to try to buy your own, even a mayonnaise sandwich will be devastatingly expensive.
16. News networks stop pretending to bring us news. Tune in to the evening news and you will see NO FACTS, just instructions about who you are supposed to trust and what you are supposed to think. Tune in to the morning news, and you’ll see three perky people seated around a coffee table telling you what your favorite color is for that day.
17. “Civil liberties” are cherished, but real freedom is abused and ignored. In the privacy of your own home, it’s a misdemeanor to look at a pictorial representation of someone smoking a cigarette. It’s for the children after all.
18. The evisceration of the Second Amendment is complete. Nobody under the age of 30 has ever seen a gun, and few can remember what one looks like. Only mugging victims. The guns must be coming from somewhere, of course, so homeowners are “encouraged” to open up their houses for inspection.
19. New World Order. One-World Government. Global income tax. Sovereign nations still have their own governments, but it’s a little tough for anyone to explain or comprehend why.
20. Language, as a tool for person-to-person communication, disappears entirely. As people approach a service counter, they fully expect to waste their time instead of acquiring useful information, and the service people have lost the expectation that they’ll dispense any good answers or be able to help anyone. Words do not convey ideas, now that it is rare for any two strangers to be speaking the same language; shrugs and grunts and pointed fingers are the currency of exchange now. The newer versions of Microsoft Word have no spell-checking, a new “phonetic” alphabet is invented that consists entirely of gutteral sounds.
21. There is a virtual “moratorium on brains.” Creativity is history. Nothing is invented, nothing original is ever written, every song is a remix, every movie is a remake or sequel of something else, even public speeches consist entirely of quotes copied or plagiarized from elsewhere. Trivial Pursuit ends in a stalemate everywhere it’s played because nobody knows the answer to anything, and is eventually relegated to the dustbin of old fads. The brightest schoolchild knows nothing, but can sing rap tunes non-stop. He mumbles. Nobody really knows what he’s singing. Nothing is ever built, very few things work, and when they break nobody knows how to fix them. The very last human skill to disappear: Dialing a phone number. Everyone spends all day talking on a cell phone — about nothing important — to someone they wouldn’t know how to reach, without their own one-button speed dial directory, which someone else transfers for them from one phone to the next. Invariably, this involves shipping the phone to another country and bitching about how long it takes to get it back. Unintelligibly.

Prudish?

Friday, April 27th, 2007

ShettyJust as the weathermen are forecasting our first spike of temperature of the year, I came across an interesting piece of news concerning Richard Gere. Now as most Americans are aware, every year when the weather starts to get warm, sometime between that first spike and Memorial Day, you can count on hearing someone, somewhere, indulge in a litte bit of — what else should I call it — putting the hate on good ol’ U.S. of A. They don’t admit to hating America…and of course they’ll snarl (yawn) peevishly at anyone having the big brass ones to say that’s what they’re doing. And they are not — repeat, not — saying anything bad about the country.

They are saying something bad about American culture. And mean to. Entirely.

The snark comes out as something like this…

“Of course, we here in America aren’t as mature about sex as some other countries.”

Or this…

“Of course, we’re a little bit prudish in America compared to the way they do things in other countries.”

Or…

“Of course, there are other countries that are a little more mature about sex and the naked body than we are here in America.”

And these comments are, in my opinion, very poorly thought-out. They are derived, first of all, from factual evidence that must remain undiscussed in order to leave the veneer of legitimacy in place on this idea being tossed around. This is necessary. To formulate an argument, and state for the record why it is you think the things you think — would, in the course of construction, fracture the argument under the force of its own weight.

It would look something like…My litmus test of a sexually mature society is whether that society allows women to talk around topless, and America doesn’t do this so it fails the test. To reconcile this with the available evidence would, at some point, necessitate some kind of study of our indecency laws state-to-state, which would pose all kinds of problems.

And then there’s the matter of the sensibility of the litmus test. Purely a matter of personal taste, of course. But I have difficulty seeing anyone standing behind it, and taking pride in doing so.

But anyway. These “other countries” are, like…although few ever say so out loud…countries in Europe. A few little mud-puddles sprinkled with nudist colonies. And France, which I’m told still considers it tasteful for a cabinet minister to — well, yeah, those who know him understand he has a mistress, but in polite society we don’t discuss it, and you’d better damn sure believe l’press is not allowed to mention it because the country is so damn “mature” about sex. Sexual maturity showing up as double-talk, in other words.

Here in the U.S., we’re juvenile because we figured out somewhere between Camelot and Watergate that this was silly. The President is dorking Marilyn Monroe, or else he isn’t. Not that Lewinskygate was the pinnacle of civilization and good judgment. But at LEAST we evolved to the point where, fer Chrissakes, something either happened or else it didn’t happen. At least people agreed that when something happened, and the Big Guy said it didn’t happen, he was lying. Our silly juvenile argument was over whether it was anybody’s business to begin with and whether the liar deserved a timeout. But our conservatives and liberals all deserve credit over l’Europeans, for treating a fact as a fact.

Meanwhile — recognizing that India is not in Europe — lookee what we have here.

A court issued arrest warrants for Hollywood actor Richard Gere and Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty on Thursday, saying their kiss at a public function “transgressed all limits of vulgarity,” media reports said.

Judge Dinesh Gupta issued the warrants in the northwestern city of Jaipur after a local citizen filed a complaint charging that the public display of affection offended local sensibilities, the Press Trust of India news agency reported.
:
Such cases against celebrities – often filed by publicity seekers – are common in conservative India. They add to a backlog of legal cases that has nearly crippled the country’s judicial system.

How would you define the characteristics of a prudish, overly-conservative and sexually-immature society? Wouldn’t they have something to do with filing case after case against people embracing in public the wrong way, to the point that the country’s judicial system is “crippled”?

I haven’t heard such a complaint against the U.S.A. or any state within it. Sure there are some brain-dead laws. But from what I’ve seen, before we get to the part about crippling the justice system, we first bump into the problem with laws everyone knows to be stupid and unenforceable — not being enforced. Which is a serious problem I think, but still a different one.

Gere, meanwhile, has apologized.

I just wanted all this bookmarked. Our “America is kind of prudish and immature” people, I can’t help noticing, like to brag about being “worldly.” It’s been my experience that if anyone dares disagree with them, they challenge the opposition with the “how many countries have you been to?” line.

And it just seems to me, if that’s what the discussion is all about, India ought to be worth a mention. They’re part of the world too. And this Gere thing, for reasons on which I’m not clear, and I wouldn’t mind being educated someday, continues to be big news. Because it seems they have “publicity seekers” over there who can’t stand watching a smooch.

Also, I’m gathering the sense that Shetty is in as big a peck of trouble as Gere over the deal, if not more. Even though when you watch the clip, it doesn’t look like she’s entirely into it. This injects at least the flavor of a human-rights issue into things. Among the Americans who view cultural sensibilities along the singular dimension, travelling from primitive-to-sophisticated along a spectrum, one step at a time from, the The Flintstones to the U.S.S. Enterprise, I think we would all have to agree: If a woman can be minding her own business — get groped — and end up facing legal consequences for not fighting the guy off hard enough, that place probably has a ways to go.

Ideas That Get Attention

Monday, April 23rd, 2007

This is why we call ourselves The Blog That Nobody Reads. You say things to get attention — it isn’t long before the reason you’re saying things, is to get that attention.

And then you’re saying things that get more attention. Some other guy says something else to get attention, and you say something assured to get you more attention for yourself than he got for himself.

And invariably…by this time, you’re saying a bunch of stupid crap. The cost of not doing the thing you want done — you yourself do not know. The benefits to be realized if the things you want done, get done — you have no idea. How it’s all supposed to work…nobody…knows…

Gun controlAnd what a shining example of this we have thanks to the Bemidji Pioneer, courtesy of Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler reader Xystus (Pioneer link requires registration).

What. The bloody. Hell.

I would be the new sheriff in town if I were an elected government official. I would propose legislation that would ban the sale of hand-guns. Of course, I would never be elected with that political platform so don’t worry. Oh, I would let the collec-tors keep their Colt 45s and other old collectible handguns. (I own a few old rifles.) But forget about ever buying a new handgun or any semiautomatic and automatic assault type weapons. If you wanted to turn your handgun or assault weapon in, my legislation would pay you for it. I would even invite you to the party where we would toss them into a fiery furnace.
:
If we ranked countries by size according to the amount of money spent, the Pentagon with its Department of Defense would be the world¹s 11th largest country. What if we built a big building like the Pentagon, hired as many people and spent the same amount of money to promote peace as the Pentagon does to fight wars. It’s just an idea. Let’s do things differently.
:
Al Gore was devastated by los-ing the election to President Bush — maybe even humiliated. But now look at him. He’s Mother Nature’s adopted son and an Oscar winner to boot. Let’s see, who would stand a better chance of winning the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts at improving our quality of life, Rush Limbaugh or Al Gore? If you had to think for more than a nanosecond, I know a bridge for sale.

Here’s what I don’t get. Twenty-nine percent of the carbon dioxide emissions that create our greenhouse gas that causes global warming comes from the United States. This is more than any other country. Yet, we cannot sign the Kyoto Protocol which is designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It also has been signed by 141 countries. China and India have not signed it, but so what? Let’s sign it and do what is right. Let’s do things differently.
:
Here are three things. (1) See Al Gore’s film. That’s all, just see it. (2) Send an e-mail to your friendly politician in Washington and suggest, “How about creating a Department of Peace? What do we have to lose?” (3) Ask yourself, “How many lives could we save if there were no more handguns?”

John R. Eggers of Bemidji is a former university professor and area principal. He also is a writer and public speaker.

Mr. Eggers, your attention please…although I have the feeling that’s easier said than done. People have seen Al Gore’s movie, believe it or not. They drive in to see it in something that gets six miles a gallon or less, drive home again, talk about it for awhile, feel really good about themselves, and then go back to what they were doing before. So does Mr. Gore, by the way. The idea of a DoP has been around as long as the country’s been around. What we have to lose, is money. We’d have a Pentagon-sized department (that was part of your idea) full of people who are supposed to do…people wouldn’t really agree on exactly what. In short, we’d have yet another agency in our leviathan government doing vague things and burning through money. That’s certainly been done before.

And as for banning handguns and trying to figure out how many lives saved — ah. We do have an answer. For about a week now…the answer is minus-thirty-two. Next question.

Credit goes to Rottweiler for the pic, which says it all. Monday last, as informed readers already know, this is exactly what happened. Had Mr. Eggers done a little old-fashioned research instead of trying to figure out how to grab attention, he’d have already known.

So you see how whoring for attention clouds one’s judgment. This stuff is so obvious and simple to understand. Paintball. Whack-a-mole. In which one, can you score thirty-two points? If you need to think on that for more than a nanosecond, I know a bridge for sale.

To Make Liberal Ideas Look Good

Wednesday, April 18th, 2007

Our liberals and our newspaper editors, but I repeat myself, have thrown themselves with great gusto into a mission to get the gun control debate back into the headlines, with no small amount of bullying force applied to the popular will. Once again, they’re going to tell the rest of us what to think. They’ve tried this before, and failed. Columbine happened, they tried again, they failed. This time they’ll try harder still.

New York Times, April 17:

Our hearts and the hearts of all Americans go out to the victims and their families. Sympathy was not enough at the time of Columbine, and eight years later it is not enough. What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.

Cherry-picked reader responses to the editorial, April 18:

How many mass shootings, how much loss, how much grief will it take before our legislators are finally willing to stand up to the National Rifle Association and pass meaningful gun control legislation?
:
How many more people will have to die before our leaders will have the sense and the guts to take on the National Rifle Association and honor the wishes of a majority of Americans who want gun control?
:
When will America join the civilized world and realize the absolute stupidity of its gun laws? Your leaders are not brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby; therefore, shootings like Monday’s will continue to occur.

Sniff…sniff…smells like…coordinated phony “grassroots” talking points being circulated. How does the old maxim go? “When the facts are on your side, pounds the facts; when the law is on your side pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table.”

Tables beware!

Our democrats have been alternating between beating their chests that “The People Have Spoken,” and huddling together to try to figure out what The People said. They’ve spent all year not knowing what to do — and now they think they’ve been handed an event on a silver platter and they can leverage it to get more gun control. There are several reasons for wanting to do this, and not a single one of them have to do with making anyone safer. Hint: The scene of Monday’s tragedy already had gun control. There was an attempt last year to fix that, and it failed. That bill could’ve saved some of the thirty-plus victims who are now dead. The New York Times editors and all others who greet that notion with some skepticism, are invited to ponder: In which activity do you think yourself more likely to score thirty points? Laser-tag, or whack-a-mole? In an environment with strict gun control, the carrier of semi-automatic pistols and multiple magazines is engaged in the latter. You might say he’s implementing the ultimate “point-and-click” user interface. It’s a miracle he didn’t take down even more.

Well, if the gun-grabbers don’t want to protect anyone, what do they want to do? Once you can get the United States to become a progressive Euro-pansy nation, you’ve shown you can get the same thing done anywhere else. It’s a political message. The United States is the king of the mountain. The One To Beat. Besides, our democrat Congress is badly in need of political messages to send. We have our first female House Speaker…and democrats and smarter-folks all the nation over are asking — so what? What’s she done? Getting a gun-grabbing bill on the President’s desk would go miles toward answering that.

It’s certainly a daunting task. Like any other liberal idea, gun control doesn’t look good and there aren’t many ways to make it look good. We should all keep in mind what a stiff challenge these gun-grabbing liberals have taken on for themselves.

How do you make a liberal idea look sensible? It turns out there are really only three ways.

Obfuscation. This is the offering that all solutions to the given problem, save the most liberal one, are products of overly simplistic ways of thinking. It exploits an interesting facet of human psychology. If you offer anything else intellectual in nature, people would look to you to provide substantive support to what you offered — but when you offer this, you can claim yourself exempt from such an expectation. The expectation itself, you can argue, is a manifestation that your point hasn’t been fairly considered. Regarding the problem at hand, anytime someone comes back to it and produces a conclusion you don’t like, you can simply accuse them of thinking in overly-simplistic terms.

You would think, then, this tactic would be available only to the geniuses among us. Isn’t it necessary to not only think in those complex terms, but produce a real solution to the problem at hand and then defend it against attack? Au contrair, whoever said such a thing. This is just “Emperor’s New Clothes” stuff in its purest form. Look at the September 11 attacks and the immediate aftermath…”what is it we could have done, to make people around the world want to do such an awful thing to us?”

Is it really simplistic thinking to say “men killed thousands of innocents in a horrible way, they are dead but belong to an organization, that organization needs to be squished like a bug”? Is that really simplistic? Perhaps, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is overly-simplistic. Speaking for myself, over five years later I’m still waiting to hear what these complicatedly-thinking geniuses have to say about what to do. I know what we’ve done that they don’t like…I know who they don’t like…that’s about all. Therein lies the benefits to obfuscation, you never really have to say what’s going on or what you’d do about it. You just criticize others.

That’s probably why Sen. John Kerry used it so much during the election of ’04 with such phony words as “nuance,” going from one end of the season to the other without ever saying specifically what he’d do about things — and address why, in a medium receptive to intrusive questions from oppositional forces, the things he would do were likely to achieve success.

Misrepresentation. Simply misstate what the problem is, or what the proposed solutions are. It is exceptionally potent, especially when the misrepresentation is supported by phonetics. Gun control falls into this category since it is frequently summarized as legislation “to get rid of all these guns lying around.” As I noted above, Monday’s rampage took place in a gun-control environment. It stands as a splendid example of what gun control does, and does not, do. It does not “get rid of all the guns.” It ensures that everyone who owns or uses guns, by process-of-elimination, is a law-breaker.

Minimum wage is another example of the phonetics lending support to the effort to misrepresent. The phrase “raise the minimum wage” carries a concise, and strong, suggestion that something is being increased. Who but the most heartless bastard can resist doing that? But in fact, an increase to the minimum wage increases nothing except a statutory parameter. Minimum wage laws, both in design and in effect, simply define a subclass of transactions and make all qualifying transactions illegal. Increasing the minimum wage simply changes the way this definition is done, by declaring more transactions illegal. Will those jobs be changed so they can become legal again, in other words, have their compensation increased? Perhaps. Sometimes. It’s not up to the Congress or to the state legislatures to decide that though.

Some insist there are studies that say the unemployment rate goes down when the minimum wage goes up. (Invariably, my own ability to call this into question is attacked since I don’t have an accounting degree and I’m not any kind of labor analyst.) And yet I can’t help noticing. If I am to accept this, I must accept the following as well:

You can have lots and lots of representations of something. You can define a subset within that thing, and declare the subset illegal. And as a result of you declaring that subset illegal, where the subset was not illegal before (or the subset was narrower before)…you now have more of the thing. Maybe it’s my lack of education talking, but it seems to me if you can collect data to support that, there’s something wrong with the way you’ve collected the data. That, or the rules don’t have quite as much of an effect on what’s being done, as you have presumed.

Carping. It’s not hard to gather an example of this. Just get in an argument with a liberal and use the names “Bush,” “Rove” or “Cheney” in any context you wish save for a negative one. Leave some sneering undone, let the other party respond…presto.

Liberals, you see, are to snarking and carping about Bush/Cheney/Rove, as straight men are to staring at a beautiful woman’s ample bosom. They behave as if they don’t take the opportunity, and someone catches them, they’ll get in trouble.

But once the carp-fest has started logic is invariably abandoned. Our liberals all know this. It’s their way of taking a “breather.” Except when you take a buddy to the gym, who isn’t quite as in-shape as you are, when his breather’s done he’ll get back into the game again. The carping liberal, I’ve noticed over time, is done for good. And that’s always struck me as a bit funny, because you don’t have to wait long before our liberals tell us their ideas would make a lot of sense if “given a fair hearing.”

And then they’re almost always the first to storm out of the room with a bunch of name-calling and snarking about Bush/Fox-News/Halliburton etc.

Just speaking for myself, I’ve filed all of the liberal arguments into those three buckets. I’m going to be accutely interested in the first argument I hear or read that demands a fourth file-folder to be fetched and labeled.

We’re talking about the lives of innocent people here. If liberals have something to say in support of gun control that doesn’t fall into Obfuscation, Misrepresentation or Carping, let’s hear it.

I Finally Found Her!

Saturday, April 14th, 2007

While we’re back on the Imus circle-jerk, I need to get to this if I don’t have time for any other thing…and I think I don’t have time for any other thing. On Thursday, I made a list of ten things that I should have seen in the episode somewhere, any one of which, by its absence, would have heightened my suspicions that all was not quite cricket. And one is not missing…all ten are missing.

Well Number Three on that list of ten must now carry a caveat.

3. I did not see any of the girls on the Rutgers team say they were offended. Their coach said all the right things repeatedly; she’s clearly angry and outraged. But Imus didn’t insult her, did he? What do the girls have to say?

One girl has been found. Her name is Matee Ajavon.

Which team will better weather its unfair attack?

The women of Rutgers basketball, the object of Don Imus’ slur? Or the men of Duke lacrosse, targeted by a “rogue” prosecutor?

No question, the Rutgers women. That’s notwithstanding reactions like “this has scarred me for life,” as Rutgers junior Matee Ajavon put it Tuesday. Surely, she exaggerates. In fact much of America now knows that young women we’d never heard of are valedictorians and musical prodigies. The Rutgers women have overthrown the stereotype that there’s no such thing as student athletes.

Not sure I agree that this has had a beneficial effect on the Rutgers ladies. Matee Ajavon isn’t the name of just anyone; you can Google it. And as of yesterday, what you got back was an impressive avalanche of athletic accomplishments written up where they belong, in the Sports section of school newspapers, before the word “ho” ever crossed Don Imus’ withered-up old lips.

I got a feeling that’s gonna change. Matee Ajavon is a melodramatic whiner, and we’re good at giving lots of attention to our melodramatic whiners when they melodramatically whine. Behold the Ajavon “scars”; they are destined to become her legacy.

Number Three will not be struck, I should hasten to add. I said it now carried a caveat that is Ms. Ajavon’s whimpering. I strongly doubt it is a sentiment to which she gave voice early on in this little episode; I expect she uttered it after Imus was fired, or very shortly before.

Too little, too late. Very few people were actually clamoring for Don Imus’ firing, and the ones who did lifted not one pinky to learn the emotional reaction of the girls who were insulted, or to report back on what those emotions were.

To reiterate: That is what the entire drama was supposed to be about. There is absolutely nothing, or very little, to indicate that it was about that — not that an inspection of events would leave an intelligent observer curious. Deep down, anyone with an I.Q. approaching-or-over the century mark, understands this wasn’t about that. The meme that Al Sharpton was rattling a sabre fighting the good fight, defending the honor of the oppressed, was concocted from the get-go for the consumption by those with barely enough brainpower to get their flies zipped and their shoes tied.

Condi Joins In

Saturday, April 14th, 2007

Condoleeza has a lot of enemies. I am not one of them. Her account with me has a sky-high balance.

But alas, she’s just decided to make a large withdrawal.

Rice Calls Imus Remarks ‘Disgusting’
The Associated Press
Friday, April 13, 2007; 5:44 PM

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the highest-ranking black woman in government history, said Friday the racist, sexist comments that got radio shock jock Don Imus fired were “disgusting.”

In her first public remarks on the controversy, Rice said Imus had insulted not only female athletes but all young black women by referring to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy headed hos.”

“They’re 18- and 19-year-old women,” she said. “And what were they doing except showing that they’re really fine athletes, playing under extraordinary pressure in which for them was a dream season.

“And it gets ruined by this disgusting _ and I’ll use the word ‘disgusting’ _ comment which doesn’t belong in any polite company and certainly doesn’t belong on any radio station that I would listen to,” Rice told talk show host Michael Medved.

“I just thought that it was an attack on women’s sports, first of all, and secondly an attack on very accomplished young black women in a way that was really offensive,” she said, according to a transcript of the interview released by the State Department.

Rice declined to offer an opinion on Imus’s firing but said she was “very glad that there was, in fact, a consequence” for the remarks.

There was also an apology for the remarks. And a meeting with those offended by the remarks. And a suspension…which almost certainly is not the consequence to which Dr. Rice was referring.

This country recognizes equal rights of everyone, by conferring on disparate demographies different “special” rights at different times. We play, in essence, a game of “Musical Rights.” And right now, some of these demographic groups enjoy the right where if you insult them intentionally or otherwise, there is no clemency.

Consequences are dealt out — so you may mend your ways? It would not seem so. I don’t know of anyone who’s going to follow Don Imus around to make sure he’s learned his lesson. Nobody in this farce seems to have given a rat’s ass about what Don Imus thinks about the Rutgers ladies, save for when he’s on his way to one more negotiating table to drop one more pound of flesh.

And not that I’m worried one tinker’s damn about his retirement plan. But it’s a little disturbing that his come-uppins have everything to do with eradicating his income and nothing at all to do with seeing to it that he mend his ways. Don Imus was dealt with by being…erased. To ensure that nobody hears his hateful words again? Don’t make me laugh. What panoply of healthy, wholesome, mind-expanding electronic programming are we left with. Get back to me on that as soon as American Idol is over, will you?

No, he was erased. To punish him. Because assassinations aren’t legal yet.

Imus is a gazillionaire — but Imus is Imus. This was done, clearly, to create a precedent so it can be done to someone else. Anyone with half the impressive menagerie of personal achievements to which Dr. Rice can lay claim, should have the intelligence to see that. And you know, maybe she’s such a rocket scientist that she can find a way to reconcile this with her oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

But I don’t see any such reconciliation. The firing of Don Imus, in intent as well as in effect, was prologue to ensuring that all transmitted ideas in this culture are supervised. We’ll figure out who has that supervisory authority later. But the issue at hand was, whether we have it in us to uphold the right to free speech, even speech we don’t like.

And we don’t have it in us. I wish it was somehow more complicated than that. It isn’t.

Mass Murder and Overtime Parking

Saturday, April 14th, 2007

This blog, which nobody actually reads anyway, spends a lot of ink belaboring the obvious. It is often accused of doing this by the folks who aren’t supposed to be reading it, and I find this to be entirely accurate. But oftentimes in life it’s the most obvious observations that are given the least amount of ink…or breath…and, oftentimes, as a direct result we tend to fail to react to these “obvious” things we know to be true, that nobody jots down or says out loud.

Half a year ago I indulged in an exercise in belaboring the obvious. The occasion that inspired the belaboring was the release of a long, long, oh so long list of reasons to hate George W. Bush — who wasn’t running for re-election, but still. Hating’s fun, right?

There is an obvious problem with the hating. As a recruiting tool, it’s expensive, clumsy, and clearly toxic. It’s also deleterious to the primary mission of recruiting, which is to unite and mobilize disparate parties who have passion for a common mission. Oftentimes, it turns out the mission is not so common.

Here’s a great example. Even though nobody ever reads this blog, if anyone ever did happen to stumble into it they’d know I have no great affection for this thing Al Sharpton did to Don Imus. It would be fair to say I hate this thing Al Sharpton did. What if I were willing to say I hate Al Sharpton himself? What if…just as a hypothetical…I were to put out a recruiting drive and tell everyone on the Internet — in summary — if you hate Al Sharpton as much as I do, I want to talk to you.

That would be stupid. I’d end up with a “ragtag fugitive fleet,” the homily goes, of…skinheads, klansmen, Don Imus fans, Tennessee Lady Volunteers maybe, some folks who are just generally good at hating, etc. Maybe even some “ho’s.” Maybe a few folks like me who are genuinely concerned about free speech, and can logically see Sharpton’s little maneuver here was directly opposed to that principle in every possible way. I expect the bigots and the trash would badly outnumber us, and before anyone goes asking, no I’m not referring to the Lady Volunteers or the Imus Fans or the ho’s. I’m talking about the bigots. You ask to be united with all others who hate as you do, equally-and-moreso in a likewise direction…and it will happen. Be careful what you wish for. Garbage in, garbage out.

That’s the problem with hate.

Then there’s the problem with a list-of-102. What do you need from a list of 102, that you can’t get from a list of twenty? I pointed out that Item #1 on the list accused George Bush of aiding and abetting our enemies, the very people on whom he declared war soon after the September 11 attacks. Mmmkay, it’s a little asinine to presume people are motionless and that their allegiances remain static over time. Kind of indicates someone watches TV way too much. But okay, let’s go with that; George Bush gave millions of dollars to the Taliban four months before the attacks, therefore he was indirectly responsible for attacking his own country.

Let us say I am completely sold on that, both in the “facts” upon which it rests, and the conclusion it wants me to draw. Fine, whatever, I hate George Bush because he pumped money into the September 11 attacks. Sold. We got us a traitor in the White House. Under what circumstances, then, am I to even consider Number Eleven…

Of Bush’s proposed $2 trillion tax cut 43% goes to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

Eh?

We got bin-Laden-Lite running the country, and you want to further agitate my rage with your trifling disputes about taxation policy? That’s a little like taking down Al Capone for tax evasion, isn’t it?

Well, yeah it is, and that’s the point. When you take down Al Capone for tax evasion, the end justifies the means. Whatever principle is involved in it, at some point is chucked out the window. And this says something about the bedmates you make for yourself when you meet other Bush-haters through some meandering endless 102-item list of “reasons to hate.” Sure, you all want George Bush out, but there the similarities must end because there is no genuine debate after you all agree you hate him. Why, who knows. At the very next Bush-haters meeting bin Laden might be standing there right next to you…whoops, I did it again, questioning their patriotism. Better change the subject before I get into trouble.

Anyway, the point stands. It’s a fairly obvious point. I’m just some knucklehead who writes for a blog nobody reads; I’m certainly not, let us say for example, the retired Chief Executive Officer of Chrysler.

The Chairman, with someone who's allowed to use the word 'Ho'Well, Lee Iacocca has flipped his lid, either lately or some time ago. Maybe he’s got a raging case of insomnia brought on by nasal congestion just like me. Except what he’s got, makes him much, much, much crankier.

I. Had Enough?

Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.”

Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think I’m getting senile, that I’ve gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don’t need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we’re fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That’s not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I’ve had enough. How about you?

There ya go. The mass-murder-and-overtime-parking indictment of pure hate. Osama-bin-Laden-Lite led us “into war on a pack of lies,” and in case you’re wondering if Iacocca has lost all perspective of what a serious charge that is to make, he goes on to bitch and moan about being allowed to keep some more of the money he made.

Did I miss something here, Mister Iacocca? You want to lecture us about what leadership is, and in order to do that you’re proceeding from the premise that you know what it is, and Congress does not. Hey, as far as that’s concerned I’m on board with you…you have made a lot of money, Congress does have a predilection for pissing it away. But you think simply acknowledging this superior wisdom of yours, through a tax policy that allows you to keep more of your money to spend or invest as you wish, is evil on par with sending the country into war on a pack of lies.

What a glorious Gordian Knot of contradiction.

While you’re busy untangling that for my benefit, sir, let’s inspect some more of your — what did you call them? — “senile” remarks.

The Test of a Leader

I’ve never been Commander in Chief, but I’ve been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I’ve figured out nine points—not ten (I don’t want people accusing me of thinking I’m Moses). I call them the “Nine Cs of Leadership.” They’re not fancy or complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader should have…So, here’s my C list:

A leader has to show CURIOSITY. He has to listen to people outside of the “Yes, sir” crowd in his inner circle. He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place. George W. Bush brags about never reading a newspaper. “I just scan the headlines,” he says. Am I hearing this right? He’s the President of the United States and he never reads a newspaper?…A leader must have COURAGE. I’m talking about balls…George Bush comes from a blue-blooded Connecticut family, but he likes to talk like a cowboy. You know, My gun is bigger than your gun. Courage in the twenty-first century doesn’t mean posturing and bravado. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.

Well. I’ll leave it to the folks from Connecticut to figure out if Iacocca is accusing them of being geldings. I’m just wondering what he’s been reading voraciously. This big, complicated world has given us a lot of examples of big, complicated problems which our courageous leaders have been talking out at negotiating tables. And when I do my voracious reading, lately it seems the only tangible results being implemented from these negotiating tables, are the ones that have to do with the U.S. and our allies getting screwed over one more time.

Did Iacocca do any voracious reading about the shell game Saddam Hussein was doing while the United Nations passed seventeen resolutions against him? Am I reading this right? That courage would have led to an eighteenth resolution, and if I do some more voracious reading I’ll eventually be able to see the logic in that?

Well maybe he’s talking about something other than Iraq. Has he done his voracious reading about North Korea? Just speaking for myself, the most compelling argument against going into Iraq, and I’ll certainly keep it in mind when rear-view-mirror disputes become something worth my time — is this: We may need the troops currently committed to Iraq, if & when the negotiations with Kim-Jong break down. This fellow presents an interesting challenge to your nine C’s, Mister I: If we were to follow your Nine, we’d be committed to showing our “balls” by jibber-jabbering with him endlessly. And your indictment against Mr. B breaks down a little because he’s been doing exactly that. Perhaps to a fault. The fact of the matter is, “Team America: World Police” seems to have captured the essence of Kim Jong-Il’s character more accurately than any of these newspapers we’re reading so voraciously. Kim-Jong seems to be running a little light on some of those C’s.

You say we show balls when we sit down at negotiating tables. One of your C’s is Common Sense.

You can’t be a leader if you don’t have COMMON SENSE. I call this Charlie Beacham’s rule. When I was a young guy just starting out in the car business, one of my first jobs was as Ford’s zone manager in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. My boss was a guy named Charlie Beacham, who was the East Coast regional manager. Charlie was a big Southerner, with a warm drawl, a huge smile, and a core of steel. Charlie used to tell me, “Remember, Lee, the only thing you’ve got going for you as a human being is your ability to reason and your common sense. If you don’t know a dip of horseshit from a dip of vanilla ice cream, you’ll never make it.”

I’m sure you know who Jimmy Carter is, he’s the guy who thoroughly exacerbated the gas crisis and gave us an inflation crisis on top of it. He, too, missed a few of your C’s, and his incompetence is almost certainly responsible for a good chunk of this Iacocca fortune you want taxed away.

But he’d love the bit about negotiating with our enemies.

President Carter consistently failed us by continuing negotiations, when [C]ommon Sense would declare the point of diminishing returns to have been reached awhile back. He’s had the biggest impact by far with regard to our current situation with North Korea, and none of his influence has been any good. He’s running around demonstrating his lack of [C]haracter and [C]uriosity by spewing bile just like yours. He wants us to negotiate some more.

With people who don’t seem to be interested in negotiating with anyone. At all. So I guess he doesn’t know horseshit from ice cream.

But like George Bush, Carter has made it to the highest office in the land. The current President, who has aroused all this crankiness out of you, according to your own logic has done just a swell job of proving Charlie Beacham wrong. In my book, you can add Carter to that mix as well. Perhaps Beacham’s words had a lot of merit, but no longer do.

Come to think of it, you’ve managed to deal the Beacham maxim a rather devastating assault here. Had any ice cream lately?

Ten Things I Did Not See In The Imus Debacle

Thursday, April 12th, 2007

…but before I get to that — a few words from someone with absolutely no sympathy for Imus whatsoever. His identity is unimportant because I think he speaks for many.

Yes, Blame Imus, but Spare Me Sharpton
John W. Mashek

For starters, I am not a fan of Don Imus.

I never watch his TV show except when visiting friends who do. His trademark of making fun of people is galling. He ought to look in the mirror now and then. Too many politicians and journalists are willing to give legitimacy to his program with their appearances.

At the same time, his main tormentors–Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson–are hardly shining lights of virtue. After all, we all have our demons to deal with.

But both Sharpton and Jackson are politicians as well as ministers. They have both run for president and so should recognize they are fair game as public figures.

For example, Sharpton refuses to apologize for his role in the Tawana Brawley phony charge of rape some 20 years ago. He pointedly refused to apologize when reporters gave him the opportunity in the presidential race four years ago. Not exactly a profile in accountability by Sharpton, who demands it from others.

Now then, here are my ten. And let me add — if one or two out of these ten escaped my notice, something would already be smelling mighty fishy. Three would be rancid. Four would be asphyxiating.

All ten are missing, and the powers-that-be are instructing me to believe that justice has prevailed and everything’s fine. I can go back to worrying about minding my P’s and Q’s, and purchasing offsets against my “carbon footprint.”

Phew.

1. I did not see Sharpton demonstrate any regard for the feelings of the girls on the Rutgers team, which is odd since this is supposed to have been all about that. And Imus, his chosen target, has done exactly that plenty of times.

2. I did not see any groundswell of popular support for taking down Imus, or taking down “shock jocks” like him. It is necessary here to distinguish between a frenzied blood-lust, and an eyeball-rolling fatigue. I’m looking for the former and not the latter. I’ve been able to divine no energetic popular consensus, or anything coming close to it, that the shock-jock industry has worn out some kind of welcome. Or, for that matter, that Reverend Al, and his “industry,” has not.

3. I did not see any of the girls on the Rutgers team say they were offended. Their coach said all the right things repeatedly; she’s clearly angry and outraged. But Imus didn’t insult her, did he? What do the girls have to say?

4. I did not see anyone — anywhere — disagree with the statement “Don Imus is a dumbass.” I get the impression some folks think he said a dumbass thing, and wasn’t one before, and has only lately become one — but this distinction is utterly without meaning and falls far short of justifying the breath needed to argue it.

5. I did not see anyone express the faintest whiff of confidence in Al Sharpton’s ability to discern right from wrong — even though, if you listen to his comments carefully, you’ll see they all have to do with decisions he unilaterally made according to his own moral compass. Can it be argued by any rational person that this is off-topic because his private desires have been without effect, or have been tempered with the wisdom of others who are more reliable or wise? My memory fails to provide me with a precedent for such a clear winner arising, Venus-like, from such a tempest; what he didn’t get out of this, he didn’t want.

6. I did not see anyone even pretend to have known Imus said something stupid, before Sharpton started making noises that there should be a problem with it. The appearance is that Imus’ comments became boneheaded the moment Sharpton said that’s what they were.

7. I did not see anyone in a position of power, even begin to try to reassure the rest of us that Al Sharpton isn’t writing all the rules and won’t be writing all the rules. And that’s strange. Shouldn’t this be obligatory? Like I said above, what he didn’t get out of this he didn’t want. Had all 535 members of Congress wanted to produce such results, how long would it take, and how far would they get? How many kings, emperors, satraps and caliphs from yesteryear have retired to the world beyond, never having tasted this kind of unfettered, dictatorial power?

8. A lot of liberals have been known in years past to produce some bastardization of the apocryphal one-liner from Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Clearly, if Imus had this right before, he no longer does, nor does anyone else in his former line of work. I don’t know of any of those liberals having expired in the last week or so, due to natural causes, or injuries related to such a noble gambit. If there’s anyone I missed, I apologize for the oversight, honor the sacrifice and extend my sympathy to the family. When’s the funeral?

9. I did not see anyone advance an argument that anyone else, anywhere, should care about what Al Sharpton finds offensive, or even — as far as that goes — tell me who he is. Or, while we’re on the subject of introductions, whether or not he’s really a Reverend, and/or when/where he was ordained. Now that he’s basically running things, shouldn’t such a credential be common knowledge?

10. As Mr. Mashek pointed out above, I did not see an apology from “Rev.” Sharpton for the Tawana Brawley mess, or for the Crown Heights riot. Not even so much as a finger-waggling lecture to people like me on why we’re committing a grievous offense against some nebulous principle for paying it some attention. Not even that. Nothing. As far as I know, he hasn’t been burdened with the minimal necessity of ignoring someone’s inconvenient question about those things.

Nifong vs. Imus

Wednesday, April 11th, 2007

Guys on the radio made a quick observation that I thought was thought-provoking and noteworthy. Just wanted to jot it down real quick.

I would bet…you may assemble any focus group you care to assemble. Democrats, Republicans, greenies, vegans, fems, just throw together whoever you want as long as the group is somewhat random. Just make it a bunch of real people. And I will bet time after time, the consensus will emerge among the focus group that the following is agreeable.

The folks who get the sound bites and tell us what to think, will never agree with it. But “real” people will.

Here it is:

Something bad should happen to the career of Mike Nifong long, long, long before anything happens to Don Imus. Nifong is more dangerous than Imus. He’s more of an embarrassment. The world is spinning all wobbly on its axis while Nifong is still allowed to do what he does, and it could hum along just fine with Imus allowed to keep doing what he does.

Pretty much everyone will agree with all that, as long as they’re real people.

Our pundits are selling us something we don’t even want to buy. And the ongoing events being any indication, we’re scarfing it up and beggin’ for seconds.

Update: And as far as that goes, I think the focus group would mostly agree this is silly:

…when asked about more mundane matters — like the price of some basic staples — [former NY City Mayor Rudy] Giuliani had trouble with a reporter’s question.

“A gallon of milk is probably about a $1.50, a loaf of bread about a $1.25, $1.30,” he said.

A check of the Web site for D’Agostino supermarket on Manhattan’s Upper East Side showed a gallon of milk priced at $4.19 and a loaf of white bread at $2.99 to $3.39. In Montgomery, Ala., a gallon of milk goes for about $3.39 and bread is about $2.

I know what groceries cost, believe me. Unlike whoever trotted off to D’Agostino’s with Blackberry in hand, I’m a raging cheapass. Let me tell you something: Giuliani did alright. He’s still wrong by any reasonable measure, but he’s a lot closer than I would have expected.

Buck fifty a gallon? I’ve actually paid exactly that, at one of the ritzy places where I splurge for the really nice salad dressing and sauces, no less. The caveat is that it’s the second gallon of two, on special. But it can certainly be done. The D’Agostino’s Blackberry reporter embarrassed himself or herself. I’ll not be sending them down to buy my groceries for me anytime soon. I’d be much happier with Giuliani doing it.

And bread? Seventy-four cents, babe. I’ve paid as little as fifty-eight. It’s called “bag your own,” otherwise known as food-stamp stores. Looks like Giuliani knows a little bit more about them than whoever was trying to slime him. What was the point of this?

Even better question: How often do Democrats get ambushed this way? I’d love to know how Hillary would do with it.

Update: Nifong still stands. Imus is fired.

I find it impossible to believe that anyone, anywhere, with red blood and a triple-digit I.Q., would be willing to place their name under these words: If it’s alright with Sharpton it’s okay with me, and if it isn’t then it’s not. I don’t think you can find anyone anywhere who’d be willing to sign onto that. And yet…how do we conduct ourselves.

NBC News dropped Don Imus yesterday, canceling his talk show on its MSNBC cable news channel a week after Mr. Imus made racially disparaging remarks about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

The move came after several days of widening calls for Mr. Imus to lose his job both on MSNBC, which simulcasts the “Imus in the Morning” show, and CBS Radio, which originates the show.

I can think of a few people I’d like fired. How do I do that? Falsely accuse someone of rape and then wait a few years?

Just damn.

Things We Don’t Know

Wednesday, April 11th, 2007

Temp dataI completely missed this two weeks ago even though I’ve been reading blogger friend Phil since then. Don’t know how it flew under my radar.

Phil credits me for inspiring his own list of things he knows, and he came up with his own TIKs #3 and #4. And that’s fine, but then he goes on to a brilliant essay about things we don’t know about anthropogenic global warming. Must-read stuff.

I got something I don’t really know, but I’m almost sure of it and would be willing to bet some money on it: If you went door to door and asked a hundred people — limited to just those who fancy themselves well-educated about global warming — what the science has proven, exactly? Ninety-seven or more of them would get the answer wrong. They’d overstate the case. The “science is settled” about some of this stuff, that much is true or mostly true; but it’s surprising how little has been proven. And what can be concluded from the “hard facts,” such as they are, that we really do have? Far, far less than what most people are told.

The Perils of Consensus Science

Wednesday, April 11th, 2007

Consensus science has a broad appeal to non-inquisitive people. It’s the process of taking a vote on something that we all, deep down inside, intuitively know shouldn’t be put to a vote.

Trouble is, you’ve got to be selective. Our environmentalists insist we use consensus science on global warming, but turn around and abandon it when the topic changes to genetically-engineered food.

And you know, that just doesn’t end up looking very scientific.

Thing I Know #129. Leaders; votes; clergy; academics; pundits; prevailing sentiment; political expediency. Wherever these decide what is & isn’t true, an empire will surely fall.

Jesse Jackson Hops Onboard

Tuesday, April 10th, 2007

Well, Jesse Jackson has joined the glorious effort to try to end Don Imus’ career. Video.

Someone please tell me what Mr. Jackson’s title is?

I’ve been wondering this since I was a little kid. Yeah, sure, you’d have to be living on Mars in order to not know who he is…that’s true enough. But throughout all of my adult life, respected newspapers have talked about what he’s doing lately, introducing him as “Jesse Jackson” as if he, and I, and the guy writing the newspaper article all went to the same church or lived on the same block or worked at the same company. If I was too stupid to know who Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton were, the newspapers would consider it proper protocol to tell me who the current United States president was. But Jesse Jackson — he’s just Jesse Jackson.

There’s something unseemly about such a high honor. Kind of like having your name put on a coin while you’re still alive.

One difference, though. I can’t quite tell you what the worst thing is that will happen, if you’re still alive and we chisel your likeness into a coin. I really can’t justify that taboo. But I can say what’s wrong with newspapers talking about Jesse Jackson without qualifying exactly who he is. It could be…and in fact, the appearance is given that this is exactly what is taken place…that if anyone in professional journalism begins to ponder what Rev. Jackson’s position is in the grand scheme of things, they’ll be forced to ponder why exactly it is that we care about what he’s doing. And once they start to ponder that, they’ll come to the realization that there’s no reason to pay attention to him at all.

And the first little boy who cries about that emperor’s lack of clothes, is sure to be targeted for the next shakedown. Well, that’s my theory anyway.

Either way, it’s awfully weird. The President, the Pope, God Himself…if they’re mentioned in the news, it’s obligatory to tell me who they are just in case I don’t know. Jesse Jackson — he’s just Jesse Jackson. Like I said. Weird.

What Offends Me

Monday, April 9th, 2007

Although Don Imus’ two-week suspension comes right after his own admission that his on-air race-based joke “went way too far,” I’m relieved to see one thing: It is based on “legitimate expressions of outrage.”

Good. I’d hate to think careers can be ended based solely on people like Al Sharpton just sniffing around for blood. Hate to think we’re living in an environment like that, or something.

Beginning Monday, April 16, MSNBC will suspend simulcasting the syndicated “Imus in the Morning” radio program for two weeks. This comes after careful consideration in the days since his racist, abhorrent comments were made. Don Imus has expressed profound regret and embarrassment and has made a commitment to listen to all of those who have raised legitimate expressions of outrage. In addition, his dedication – in his words – to change the discourse on his program moving forward, has confirmed for us that this action is appropriate. Our future relationship with Imus is contingent on his ability to live up to his word. [emphasis mine]

One thing is missing. Can anybody guess what it is? Anybody? Anybody at all?

Anyone?

Okay…here’s what I would have expected to see by now. Here it is. Drum roll, please…I would have expected to see…the legitimate expression of outrage.

Which, I would expect…would be a lady who plays for the Rutgers basketball team, the “target” of Imus’ stupid crack. As Imus himself said, and this is something I found to be contrite, well-written, sincere, and really a model for future apologies — I’ll let his words stand as he delivered them

…I’m not inclined to try to weasel out of these comments, which is why, when I reached out to Reverend Sharpton and he invited me on his program, I’m grateful that he is allowing me to come talk to him and his audience, so—he is still calling for me to be fired and that’s his right, but at least he is going to let me talk to him.

So, these young women at Rutgers, they don’t know who I am. I mean, they pick the paper up, and they don’t know—they don’t know whether I’m some right-wing racist nut, whether I was angry, whether it was some kind of diatribe, whether I was drunk. They don’t know whether I just came on the radio and said hey, the young women of Rutgers are yada, yada. So let me provide a context briefly for them—not as an excuse, not that this makes this okay, nothing makes this okay. But there is a difference between premeditated murder and accidental, the gun going off accidentally. I mean, somebody still gets shot, but the charges are dramatically different.

Now, I disagree with Imus on a lot of things, and I think it’s fair to say he offends me quite often. But in this apology, although by his own admission it doesn’t make his comment any more tasteful or acceptable, it does do one thing. And his critics, to the best of my knowledge, haven’t done this: It addresses the feelings and sentiments of his “targets” who are in the “best” position to be offended.

I haven’t heard Reverend Al do anything like that. All I’ve heard of him doing, is going on and on about some “line” or what “should” be tolerated or what’s “unacceptable” — according to HIM.

Time to scribble down some observations. Pretty obvious ones. Observations that are never mentioned by anyone, but, since I have a survival instinct like anyone else, some pretty safe ones.

First. Imus is a “shock jock.” That is not to say I think it’s an excuse for what he did. I’m not saying that…I’m simply saying this. His position, the socket in which the Imus cog spins in the corporate machinery, is one which provokes. That is his purpose. His job is not merely to provoke, but to provoke optimally. OF course it is a well-established rule by now that there is a line somewhere, and shock jocks should expect that once they go over it, punitive events will take place. This should be a surprise to no one. But there is a penalty for underperforming too…a penalty of pointlessness. I would compare it to Blackjack. It’s exactly like Blackjack. Draw twenty-one, you win. Draw twenty, and if your opponent draws nineteen or less, you still win — your opponent, for that hand, is a big nothing. He might as well have drawn a two. There is no second place, so get as close to twenty-one as you possibly can. But draw twenty-two and it’s all over. So there is a line somewhere. Everybody knows this is the case with shock jocks. Nobody ever points it out, because it doesn’t personally benefit anyone to be the guy pointing it out. But there is a line, everything revolves around that line, and that’s how it works.

Second. The line has no absolute location, which is interesting because everything is decided by what has crossed the line and what hasn’t. Absolutely everything.

Third. Just as Imus makes his “living,” if you want to call it that, by drawing twenty-one or something close to it — Sharpton makes his living taking down people like Imus. It is what he does. He’s a predator. If Imus minded his P’s and Q’s, Sharpton would be reduced to taking down insignificant microorganisms. Like for example, some guy who writes for a blog nobody reads. On the other hand, if Rush Limbaugh did something vile and stupid, Imus could scream the n-word into his microphone all day long and Sharpton wouldn’t give two shits about it because he’d have bigger fish to fry. To compare Sharpton to a hyena is an insult to hyenas because hyenas hunt in packs, have a social order they need to observe, and an ostracized hyena is sure to be a dead hyena. They have their own code of honor, of sorts, such as it is. Sharpton is more like a buzzard. He circles what he has calculated to be road kill or soon-to-be road kill, and pecks away at it in a manner most economically viable to him alone.

Four. His words notwithstanding, Sharpton has not even a passing clue where the “line” is. He’ll draw it himself based on his calculations of where he may get away with drawing it, and excite people into phony outrage.

Five. And this is most obvious of all…and the least mentioned. Given how people like Imus make a living, and how people like Sharpton make a living — nothing is being solved here. It’s a perpetual cycle. Imus makes money offending people, Sharpton makes money being offended. Whether Imus shakes this thing off or not, we’re due for another lap around the track next year and the year after.

Six. Investing anything more emotionally substantial than a blog-posting or an eyeball-roll in any of this, is a discredit to onesself. And as a society, we discredit ourselves by allowing it to continue over and over again.

All of those are completely obvious. Everyone with a room-temperature-or-greater I.Q., consciously or not, knows all six points to be true. Put them all together, and it’s impossible to escape how meaningless, senseless and downright stupid all this stuff is.

One thing does kind of bug me a little bit though. Remember, I don’t know of any Rutger’s ladies who personally heard Imus’ comments, and personally reported being offended by them. I don’t doubt such a lady athlete exists. I’m sure she does, or that they do. But I wouldn’t be willing to bet too much money on it, frankly.

Contrasted with that…

…there are some things that go on fairly regularly that I know for a fact, offend people. I know this for absolute-certain, and I haven’t heard Reverend Al say butkus about any of them. How do I know these things offend people? Because I’m one of the offended.

They Offend MeI thought I’d make a list. Al Sharpton presents himself not as the predator I know him to be, but as a crusader against things that are offensive. If I am to take him seriously, I must necessarily expect him to prioritize all these things over and above the Imus/Rutgers thing. I therefore anticipate him to crusade on all these issues, bullhorn in hand.

Although I’m a compulsive list-maker, I draw the line at having two lists in one post so I’ve moved my list of offensive things to a separate page.

Hey Reverend Al, there’s two dozen things in there and I’m not even counting the Tawana Brawley mess from twenty years ago. They all offend me, and therefore, I can guarantee someone somewhere finds all 24 offensive. I can swear an oath to that effect. In all honesty, I can’t do the same with the Imus debacle. Are you the scourge of offensive things, or aren’t you?

Olbermann’s Best Person

Monday, April 9th, 2007

Keith Olbermann has a “shocking announcement” to make. Why don’t you watch it.

Regarding the O’Reilly/Rivera dust-up: Those two have kissed & made-up. Which is to say, they & their bosses figured out the publicity value involved in the little drama had exceeded the point of diminishing returns, and they’re telling us what they think they need to tell us in order to keep the ratings high.

What to make of this? Well I agree with this editorial over here:

Fox broadcaster Bill O’Reilly has certainly stirred up the city of Virginia Beach. Two Virginia Beach teenagers Alison Kunhardt, 17, and Tessa Tranchant, 16, were killed recently when their car was slammed into by a vehicle driven by Alfredo Ramos, 22. Ramos is an illegal alien with a record of three-alcohol-related convictions.

Mr. O’Reilly has criticized the lenient sentences Ramos received in his prior DUI convictions and attacked Virginia Beach for basically providing “sanctuary” for illegal aliens.

In defending his city, Virginia Beach police chief Jake Jacocks made a stunning statement. He said he found it “ironic that had the intoxicated driver been born and raised in Virginia Beach, little notice would have been given to this senseless tragedy by the media or the community at large.

If that’s true, it’s appalling. A great deal of notice should have been given when a man has been convicted of DUI three times is still on the road. The driver should have been in jail.

In jail, and/or out of the country.

However, the rest of the Chief’s comments do carry a certain logic. Immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the feds. I’ve not yet seen any facts to confound the notion that O’Reilly is, effectively, making scapegoats out of the Virginia Beach city officials for a problem that primarily rests with the federal government.

That’s O’Reilly’s first mistake. Losing his temper was his second.

But if he must blow his stack sometime, what a great occasion for it. What exactly was wrong with O’Reilly’s indignation, Geraldo didn’t say; I don’t think he can do so. I’m absolutely confident that the salivating fans of Olbermann and Rivera can’t tell me, or if they do, their answer will be anything but unified from person-to-person. What did Rivera say word for word…something about illegal immigrants committing fewer crimes than citizens? That’s a load of crap. Illegal immigrants are lawbreakers by definition. If there are statistics that say they commit fewer crimes, that’s a sign that the method of gathering the statistics is busted.

And how could you expect the method not to be busted? You’d be comparing more-or-less complete records, with incomplete ones. That’s what illlegal means — you don’t know the record. Geraldo understands this.

So since he’s proven himself utterly untrustworthy and completely unconcerned with the truth, I’ll state his argument for him. Geraldo is from the anarchy crowd. Anti-law-and-order. Some of us are weary of seeing people hurt by malicious or negligent people, and we want something done about it — other folks are mad at us for becoming weary, and have drummed up a plethora of reasons why we shouldn’t be weary yet. But they aren’t defending any principle. They’re just suspicious of human machineries dedicated to law-and-order. They don’t trust them, and for this reason, prefer chaos. They’re prejudiced against the idea of Matt Dillon riding in to town and locking up the guy in the black hat. They have a childish desire to see Matt Dillon gunned down instead, and as for the guy in the black hat, well, let the chips fall where they may.

Keith Olbermann, according to his own remarks, has also engaged in a “first.” He’s handed out a “Best Person” award. For what? Well, I’ve given a summary of the reason in the preceding paragraph. It is the only coherent one you’re going to see; you’ll certainly see nothing clearer or plainer coming from the folks who agree with Olbermann and Rivera. The point about discriminating against illegal aliens, is a complete crock. We’re supposed to discriminate against them. They’re criminals. The point about illegal aliens not breaking the law, is an even bigger crock.

In my book, this shows Olbermann is in favor of people getting drunk and killing other people, as long as the drunk driver is an illegal alien. I’m sure that notion gets under the skin of a lot of readers, and I’m sure a lot of them think I’m curtailing someone’s rights…even though, all I’m doing is making up my own mind as a private citizen, and writing it down. But unlike Rivera, Olby made his comments without anyone talking over him. He had plenty of time to say what he wanted to say. And what I saw was 1) O’Reilly pointed out the deaths were utterly preventable and that city officials should be held accountable; 2) Rivera gave a bunch of bullshit reasons why this is not the case; 3) O’Reilly lost his cool; 4) Olbermann — for reasons he’s afraid to state, or thinks unnecessary to state, or both — gave Rivera the first-ever “Best Person” award. An award he could have handed out at any other time over the last two years. For anything. He thought this was the right occasion. Making a stand for………illegal immigrants who break into the country, and get drunk, and use their cars as weapons and kill girls. He wanted now to be the time, so he could be crystal-clear about what he supports and what he opposes.

Am I to conclude something else?

Why We Have Blogs

Saturday, April 7th, 2007

Regarding Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Syria: This is why we have blogs.

The print and electronic media, in both hard news and editorial, have entirely failed us in this area. They’ve had all week long to address this thing the Speaker did. Let me boil down how they addressed it: The hard news resources give us the events and the sound bites. If you’re trying to figure out how to vote in 2008 based on events like this, and you rely on hard news, you must rely on the sound bites from the White House and from the Democrats in Congress. That’s an example of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse if ever there was one. Both sides spin — and rest assured on this, if either side manages to sound more compelling than the other, it’s probably the least honorable side that prevails. So what we call “hard news” sucks, as a tool to address the problem at hand.

Editorials aren’t much better. Speaker Pelosi may have committed a felony here; conservative editorials will play that up, liberal ones will play that down. Occasionally, someone will step back and take a broader view that may be useful to us across a longer timeframe, like Fred Barnes when he wrote for the Weekly Standard:

Something gets into political leaders when they take over Congress. It makes them think they can run Washington and the government from Capitol Hill. So they overreach, but it never works. Republicans tried it in 1995 and were slapped down by President Clinton in the fight over the budget and a government shutdown. Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is operating as if she rules much more than just the House of Representatives. This includes having her own foreign policy — a sure recipe for trouble.

Thus is Pelosi’s misstep explained according to her human failings, rather than simply by the corrupting influence of politics.

But such contributions are few and far between, and if the Barnes editorial gets any visibility, the citadel that is the print editorial “industry” will mobilize to get it slimed. Editorials don’t exist, after all, to show us our leaders are human; they exist to show us our leaders are corrupt if they have the letter “R” after their names, or had the best of intentions if they have the letter “D” after their names. And certainly, they aren’t supposed to depict the emperor’s nakedness when said emperor is the first emperess to hold the House gavel.

And even Barnes’ comments fail to address the underlying question: Just how far do we have to position our Democrats from official diplomatic offices, before they’ll stop flying around making promises to foreign heads-of-state that we don’t want them to make? Seems to me, that’s what the American electorate needs to know.

And it falls to the blogging community to answer that. I’ll tell you why. To answer that question, you have to have a certain level of healthy cynicism. There is such a thing, you know. Humans are cynical creatures. It’s a survival instinct. You take your family to a nice restaurant, part with more money than you expected, and get lousy service and lousy food. You give the place a second shot the next month, part with the same amount of money, get lousy service and lousy food. You give the place a third chance the next month, with the same results…you won’t be going back a fourth time. Ever. That’s cynicism. It’s a healthy thing.

And the fact of the matter is — as unprofessional as bloggers can be, and as helpful as “real” editorials can be sometimes — editorials aren’t supposed to be cynical. Good cynicism, bad cynicism, it’s all the same. The first rough draft passes from the pen of the author, and passes under the eyeball of the very first editor, the first casualty after the stuff Microsoft Word underlines as spelling and grammar mistakes, is cynicism. All kinds.

This is a problem. We live in an age where we need our cynicism to help us with our thinking.

And my cynicism tells me things. Things that are unprovable, but still things that are undisputed…or if they are disputed, they ought not be.

Let’s parse what what Speaker Pelosi herself had to say about the administration’s objections:

“Our message was President Bush’s message,” Pelosi told the Associated Press from Portugal. “The funny thing is, I think we may have even had a more powerful impact with our message because of the attention that was called to our trip. It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive.”

Speaker Pelosi’s position is based on two lies. First of all, to believe the things she has had to say about her trip, you have to believe that her office and the White House are in agreement about things. On the other hand, to believe the things the White House has had to say, you have to believe that the House Speaker and the President disagree. Well, guess what: They don’t agree. So to believe Speaker Pelosi, you have to accept that she’s in lock-step with President Bush about everything that needs to be told to Syria, even as those two fail to agree on everything from bacon-or-eggs to tastes-great-less-filling to black-or-cream-sugar.

Second lie: Her talking points are carefully calculated to shore up a constituency that is hopelessly divided. She says “our message was President Bush’s message,” and what she’s doing — you won’t read this in any editorial, but it’s the truth — is addressing two constituencies instead of one. Her job is to keep on doing this throughout Election Day ’08. Moderates who long for an end to partisan disputes and are ready to vote for anyone showing signs of bringing that end, hear these words and interpret them the way they want. Oh, Speaker Pelosi has respect for the President’s authority. She’s discharging that authority in a way President Bush himself cannot…perhaps because she’s more articulate. The results are sure to be positive. Why, think what would happen if we put someone from her party in the President’s chair…and come to think of it, it’s been awhile since they had the chance. Maybe we should give it to them again. After all, the policies won’t change much, but the execution will be better. Perhaps that’s what we need. Hmmm.

And then the MoveOnDotOrgsters, who want anything but an end to partisan divide — they hear the same words and think something else. Pelosi, they think, is pointing out Bush’s incompetence. Go Nan! Because, after all, according to the KOSsacks and MoveOn.Orgsters, there is no point to anyone making a public comment about anything, other than to make Bush look bad. Think about it. When’s the last time you heard a liberal Democrat say something in public that had any other purpose? Been a while, huh?

Pelosi’s comments united these two camps. At least tangentially. Now, you get representatives from these two groups, moderates and extreme leftists, in a room together and — look out. The likely result is flying furniture. But Pelosi has managed to deliver words that each side of the split, will pick out and interpret in the way they want.

Of course, when the words are sufficiently vague to bring about that false emulsification, they become meaningless. “Our message was President Bush’s message.” That really means nothing. But who cares?

Meanwhile, in a sane world, the value of Pelosi’s trip would be measured according to the yardstick of Jimmy Carter’s trip to North Korea thirteen years ago, and the disaster that followed. The House Speaker’s authority to negotiate with foreign governments, is pretty much the same as the authority of a failed former President. Or a football, or expired carton of milk. I do hope the eventual results are better. There is no reason for me to think so.

Time to drag out the dialog between McClane and Ellis from the first Die Hard movie. I wish it didn’t mesh with real events quite so often…


Ellis: It’s not what I want, it’s what I can give you. Look, let’s be straight, okay? It’s obvious you’re not some dumb thug up here to snatch a few purses, am I right?

Hans: You’re very perceptive.

Ellis: Hey, I read the papers, I watch 60 minutes, I say to myself, these guys are professionals, they’re motivated, they’re happening. They want something. Now, personally, I don’t care about your politics. Maybe you’re pissed at the Camel Jockeys, maybe it’s the Hebes, Northern Ireland, that’s none of my business. I figure, You’re here to negotiate, am I right?

Hans: You’re amazing. You figured this all out already?

Ellis: Hey, business is business. You use a gun, I use a fountain pen, what’s the difference? To put it in my terms, you’re here on a hostile takeover and you grab us for some greenmail but you didn’t expect a poison pill was gonna be running around the building. Hans, baby… I’m your white knight.

Hans: I must have missed 60 Minutes. What are you saying?

Ellis: The guy upstairs who’s fucking things up? I can give him to you.
:
:
Hans [on radio to McClane]: I have someone who wants to talk to you. A very special friend who was at the party with you tonight.

Ellis: Hello, John boy?

McClane: Ellis?

Ellis: John, they’re giving me a few minutes to try and talk some sense into you. I know you think you’re doing your job, and I can appreciate that, but you’re just dragging this thing out. None of us gets out of here until these people can negotiate with the LA police, and they’re just not gonna start doing that until you stop messing up the works.

McClane: Ellis, what have you told them?

Ellis: I told them we’re old friends and you were my guest at the party.

McClane: Ellis… you shouldn’t be doing this…

Ellis: Tell me about it.

Ellis: All right… John, listen to me… They want you to tell them where the detonators are. They know people are listening. They want the detonators of they’re going to kill me.

Ellis: John, didn’t you hear me?

McClane: Yeah, I hear you, you fucking moron!

Ellis: John, I think you could get with the program a little. The police are here now. It’s their problem. Tell these guys where the detonators are so no one else gets hurt. Hey, I’m putting my life on the line for you buddy…

McClane: Don’t you think I know that! Put Hans on! Hans, listen to me, that shithead doesn’t know what kind of scum you are, but I do –

Hans: Good. Then you’ll give us what we want and save your friend’s life. You’re not part of this equation. It’s time to realize that.

Ellis: What am I, a method actor? Hans, babe, put away the gun. This is

McClane: That asshole’s not my friend! I barely know him! I hate his fucking guts — Ellis, for Christ’s sake, tell him you don’t mean shit to me –

Ellis: John, how can you say that, after all these years–? John? John?

[Hans shoots Ellis]

Hans: Hear that? Talk to me, where are my detonators. Where are they or shall I shoot another one?

Fortunately, the gunshot was figurative and unlike the hapless Ellis, Speaker Pelosi is okay. But her strategy is just as kooky as his, and I’m afraid every bit as ill-fated.

Update 4-10-07: Welcome Pajamas Media readers.

Supreme Court Ruling on Global Warming

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007

One of the reasons we’re all supposed to want to get rid of President Bush, is that supposedly his Supreme Court appointments are spectacles of something hideous and dreadful. Except…Justice Alito seems to be doing okay…Chief Justice Roberts seems to be doing okay…and these four or five bozos who represent the antithesis of a Bush’s nominee, the “liberal wing,” they call ’em? Some homeless guy plucked off the street could do a better job.

“EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” quoth Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. Goooooooood. Just what we need, a judicial branch bullying and intimidating our federal agencies into pushing us around some more.

Agencies say “we’re just not sure,” and — hey you know what, scientifically, that’s the correct answer. But anyway. Supreme Court writes up an opinion that says gosh, we just don’t like your answer. Go re-think it.

That’s the way government works, huh?

We’ve got about twenty years before all this global warming hocus-pocus looks like the pet-rock newspaper-horoscope mood-ring junk science that it is. Then you can haul out all these stories and shake your head with a melancholy smile about how badly we were fooled. Without a doubt, this needs to go in the file.

Update: More & better info here.

Five Outta Six

Thursday, March 29th, 2007

Read for yourself.

A new Yale research survey reveals a significant shift in public attitudes toward the environment and global warming. Fully 83 percent of Americans now say global warming is a “serious” problem, up from 70 percent in 2004. More Americans than ever say they have serious concerns about environmental threats, such as toxic soil and water (92 percent, up from 85 percent in 2004), deforestation (89 percent, up from 78 percent), air pollution (93 percent, up from 87 percent) and the extinction of wildlife (83 percent, up from 72 percent in 2005).

Huh. What about that survey from 2004?

On the eve of the release of the much-anticipated movie, The Day After Tomorrow, the global warming disaster movie, a national poll undertaken at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies indicates that 70% of Americans believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious problem, while just 20% of Americans believe global warming does not represent a serious issue.

Day After Tomorrow, huh?

I’d like to see a poll on whether something else is a serious problem. I’d like to see a poll on how many Americans believe a lot of other Americans are freakin’ raging idiots.

In fact, I’d like to see a poll on the problem I’ve identified that really irritates me. Here’s the problem. People are presented with a premise A. A is proven by B. Global Warming is proven by “Day After Tomorrow,” or President Bush called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper” because some crappy tabloid says he said it. In cases like this, B is widely acknowledged to be bullshit. Even people who desperately want to believe A, understand B is bullshit.

And yet, they believe in A more fervently with B, than without B.

Stating the reasons why they believe A, they cite B, which they know to be bullshit.

I do not mean to imply !A just because B is bullshit. A could still be true. But this trend lately of reinforcing assumptions that may or may not be true, based on pieces of evidence known to be rancid crap and nothing more — with a straight face no less — is a harbinger of bad times ahead. It’s a sickness. There’s nothing healthy about it.

As one of the 17%, I’d like to know how many among the 83% would simply acknowledge this is a problem. Nevermind whether they themselves have fallen victim to it, we’ll leave that for later. But the fact remains, a lot of this stuff that’s been used to bolster the case of ManBearPig suffers from glaring problems; and the evidence that does not suffer from such problems, has been whittled down to pinpoint size.

I’d like to see polls on all this stuff. Because if people don’t have confidence in the opinions of everybody around them, it makes very little sense to pursue the argument “I must be right because look at all the people who agree with me.”

Elections Have Consequences? On Science?

Saturday, March 24th, 2007

The Media Research Center posts some eye-popping stuff, but this item really stands out.

Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma): “I mentioned this in my opening statement about they’re, they’re criticizing you for some of your, your being too alarmist and hurting your own cause. Now, I’ll ask you to respond in writing for that one because that would be a very long response, I’m afraid. Now, it seems that everybody — Global warming in the media joined the chorus last summer-”

Former Vice President Al Gore: “Well, I would like to–” “May I–” “May I-”

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California): “Excuse me, Senator Inhofe. We’ll freeze the time for a minute.”

Inhofe: “Oh, yes.”

Boxer: “I’m just trying to make-”

Inhofe: “Take your time. We’re freezing the time.”

Boxer: “No, no. We’re freezing the time just for a minute. I want, I want to talk to you a minute, please. [Laughter] Would you, would you agree, would you agree to let the Vice President answer your questions? And then if you want an extra few minutes at the end, I’m happy to give it to you. But we’re not going to get anywhere.”

Inhofe: “Why don’t we do this, why don’t we do this— At the end, you can have as much time as you want to answer all the questions?”

Boxer: “No, that isn’t the rule. You’re not making the rules, used to when you did this. [Boxer holds up the gavel.] You don’t do this anymore. Elections have consequences.”

Well, for the record I find Sen. Boxer’s suggestion to be reasonable. I’ts long been a pet peeve of mine when senators ask what are called “questions” but what, in reality, have nothing to do with the inquisitive nature or the brevity one would associate with something called a question. Were I king, there would be a hard-and-fast rule against it, with automatic impeachment for violators. Questions are questions. No grandstanding.

When I take everything over and become emperor, that’s my twenty-first order of business.

But I’ll say this. I don’t understand what ensuring the continuing survival of the planet, has to do with settling old scores in that exclusive club known as The Senate. Boxer, and all who cheer on her little personal vendetta, must know global warming to be a crock; for if there was something to it, how would this little score she has to settle with Inhofe, matter a tinker’s damn?

But this was really incredible. Keep in mind: Our electronic media continues to insist that media left-leaning bias is a myth. Keep it in mind…

Brianna Keiler: “Wow. All right. That was quite an exchange. And, you know, we were expecting something from Senator James Inhofe. He is a critic of global warming. In fact, he once said that global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people. So, certainly, we were expecting something from him. We thought maybe it might be with him and former Senator, former Vice President Al Gore, but it ended up between him and Senator Barbara Boxer. She really got a stinger in there, I will say.”

Don Lemon: “Good for her.”

How’s that fair? How’s that for objective reporting?

Really grasping to play “angel’s advocate” with this, I’d have to ponder…if you’d seen Al Gore’s movie, and came away with it really concerned about the continuing survival of our environment and our species, and “the science was settled” and so forth…I suppose you would be tempted to conclude the only thing standing between us, and salvation, is the endless political wheel-spinning in places of authority like the U.S. Congress. Overcome that, maybe we live, fail to do so, and we perish.

I guess then you’d get really excited when Sen. Boxer gets a stinger in there. And you’d say asinine things like “good for her.”

Understandable, but it has no place behind a news desk.

Why is this even in Congress, anyway? If 99 senators vote that global warming is a big crock, but it’s really going to destroy us, that just means the Senate is wrong; likewise, if 99 vote that it’s the plague of the 21st century but in reality it’s just a bag o’bovine feces, then again, the Senate is wrong.

And my wonderful liberal female hippy senator tells us elections have consequences. Do they really? If so, when are you going to vote on the freezing temperature of water, Barbara? Thirty-two degrees never did have much appeal to me, and I’ll bet a majority of us would appreciate something a bit more tepid. Get on that, will you? Elections have consequences.

Thing I Know #70. Courage has very little to do with being outspoken.
Thing I Know #129. Leaders; votes; clergy; academics; pundits; prevailing sentiment; political expediency. Wherever these decide what is & isn’t true, an empire will surely fall.

Kill That Bear

Wednesday, March 21st, 2007

BearVia Malkin, we find this at Riehl World View:

Those Sick Animal Rights Hazmats

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything else that makes it so clear, the animal rights crowd doesn’t love animals nearly as much as it hates humans – and almost by definition, themselves.

At three months old, however, the playful 19lb bundle of fur is at the centre of an impassioned debate over whether he should live or die.

Animal rights activists argue that he should be given a lethal injection rather than brought up suffering the humiliation of being treated as a domestic pet.

“The zoo must kill the bear,” said spokesman Frank Albrecht. “Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws.”

More info behind the link at CNN.

Nurseries of Tomorrow’s Leaders

Sunday, March 4th, 2007

Thing I Know #90. A committee is a group of four or more people, each of whom are invested in an all-consuming mission to appear more important than the others. Through their dedication, good judgment, and continued persistence in these efforts, they have an excellent chance at making the committee itself utterly useless.
Thing I Know #93. People tend to change the way they think when they’re in groups. Generally, an idea generated in a group is worth a lot less than an idea someone thinks up on their own.

Very frequently in life we run into an event which, in the aftermath, presents us with an unpalatable decision. We may comment audibly on what it is we have just seen, which is to commit the grievous sin of belaboring the obvious. Or we may keep quiet, which raises the very real specter of yet another lap on the ol’ merry go-stupid.

Age has something to do with this. Show me a man whose heart has beat for four decades or more, and I’ll show you someone who’s tired of the ride, and would rather belabor the obvious than go ’round again. We’re over forty, so belabor it we shall.

So what really happened two years ago, when the events were put in motion that would eventually cost Larry Summers his job as President of Harvard? You remember, don’t you. The former Treasury Secretary under President Clinton made a comment or two about the paucity of successful women in science and engineering pursuits. He said it might be symptomatic of an aptitude differential between the sexes. In other words, perhaps there are innate differences between men and women.

Everything after that was just yet another chapter in a book we’ve already read many times. He apologized, he apologized again, he apologized again-again, he apologized for his previous apologies, and then he left to go spend more time with his family.

Which provided rich ammunition for conservatives. President Summers did not say the ladies were suffering in their academic achievements because they didn’t have what it takes to succeed. He did not, by any account, say anything about the extent to which their potential was limited in an engineering field. In fact, it seems he didn’t deny anything about traditional gender discrimination that might be taking place, in the present, in hiring and acceptance decisions. And that is where the story gets rich. Summers was commenting that perhaps what we’re seeing is a combination of several factors at work; discrimination — and some other stuff too.

For that kind of comment to cost him his job, sends the unmistakable message: A hundred pounds of underrepresentation, is a hundred pounds of discrimination, not an ounce less. Thou art not to think of anything else, or thine career is forfeit.

You can’t extrapolate any other message from the Summers flotsam-and-jetsam. Of course, it makes it a little sticky when there are no transcripts of what Summers actually said; you knew that too, didn’t you? No, really. Think back. You might have read here and there about the substance of his comments, as interpreted by some reporter for the Boston Globe…or what someone told that reporter. Maybe a friend-of-a-friend type thing. But you didn’t read any hard quotes.

Searching for some, I did trip across this thing which purports to be a word-for-word transcript. It may very well be exactly that. One problem with that is, several stories have come out about this putting the words “innate” and/or “innately” into hard scare-quotes, as if he used those words, and I don’t find them in the transcript. A mistake must have been made somewhere.

But the transcript does look impressively…complicated. It has the appearance of being the product of some kind of recording device. I’ll assume it’s genuine, not that it matters much I suppose.

So accepting that, let’s take a look at what he said.

There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference’s papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call…the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described.

Now, ya got that? Summers is saying what we seem to be looking at, is a mixture of three different forces at work. The most impactful factor is that when you have a “high-powered job,” more will be expected of you, and overall men are going to have an easier time integrating such a professional life with the other aspects of their lives. The second biggest factor is that women and men bring different sets of aptitudes to those demanding jobs. And the third factor, least important among the three, is good old-fashioned discrimination.

Summers’ failure to skip the first two of those, and leapfrog down to #3, was just too much for Nancy Hopkins. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” the MIT professor said.

Well, there must be a prevailing viewpoint at work, otherwise Summers would not have been forced to resign. And clearly the prevailing viewpoint was aptly represented, in some way, by Hopkins’…gag reflex, I guess.

If we shall belabor the obvious, let us do so by examining all the elements minus the one that arouses all the emotion. We got a bunch of college eggheads in a room somewhere and the college eggheads are tackling a problem. Let us say the problem is — a business is making widgets and people aren’t buying as many of the widgets as they used to. Egghead One steps up to the podium and says hey, I see three things the business can be doing better, and in order of importance here they are. One, Two, Three. Egghead Two gets all pissy because Egghead One cited three things instead of just one. Egghead Two loses her lunch and Egghead One has to resign.

Now what are we to think of such an environment? That it takes very little to make people barf, isn’t a fair conclusion to draw; my hypothetical, by design, removes a situation that gets a lot of people very excited, and justifiably so. However — it is quite fair to draw the conclusion that, for whatever reason, we have an enviornment here that looks at simplified solutions. And it uses some teeth when it looks at the simplified solutions. Summers said, gee, let’s look at this thing and that thing, and that other thing over there…end result is he’s out on his ass.

And in real life the situation is a little more complicated than that. The President of the United States, a Republican widely seen as an easy target for removal and disgrace, had just been re-elected with the greatest number of popular votes in the nation’s history. Our liberals wanted some blood and fresh meat. It’s a funny thing about our liberals; when they win, they want blood — and when they lose, they still want blood. Always, no matter what happens, the onus is put on everybody else to appease the liberals because of something that just happened, whatever that something may be. It seems there is no situation possible, in theory or in fact, that will ever make liberals shut up and go away even for a little while.

But anyway, George Bush had just been re-elected and the liberals wanted to be placated.

And yet. What does this say about Harvard, and about higher education in general? Over and over again, we are told that a higher education allows you to see the permutations of “gray” in each situation that comes along, that our academic hallways are places wherein situations can be reviewed for the complexity involved in them, and solutions evaluated with vigor, with peer-review and the like. Such tolerance at work, nothing is shunned save for the concept of the overly-simplified solution.

But — how does it shake out? Larry Summers says “you know what, maybe the cat isn’t bathing because he’s old AND sick.” And for this, out he goes. To seriously entertain multiple causes of a common perceived problem, it would seem, is something best left to the world outside the ivy-covered walls. Inside, we’ll stick to our monochromatic diagnoses, thank you very much. There’s that nausea to think about, ya know.

So that’s one thing. And the other thing is even more obvious…and I really don’t want to make anyone up-chuck here, but here it is.

The issue is innate differences between the genders. Summers lost his job because he didn’t think innate differences were off the table. He went ahead and discussed them, and shame on him. Well, now — suppose the subject had turned to the development of those differences, and someone stepped forward to point out that girls mature faster than boys. Which, in just about all the ways that matter, they really do. Watch girls and boys sometime, you can see it. Take a given age, and a girl has more going on in general, than a boy…and this impacts later development in a number of ways.

It’s an innate difference.

Would anyone have lost their job for pointing that out? Heh. Don’t count on it.

Now, that’s a bias. There’s really nothing wrong with having a bias in & of itself, it’s the way people think. I would compare it to achieving old age: At first blush it seems like a pretty bad thing, but it’s wonderful when you consider the alternative. But it is still a weakness, and when it is sheltered and nurtured, even as it is used to justify the removal of a high official simply for pointing out possible causes to a problem that has been proven to be difficult to solve, and to involve a lot of permutations — something is busted. It’s even more busted when the purpose of the conference is stated to be “National Bureau of Economic Research Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce,” and people are being ousted simply for discussing more than one causative factor insofar as the diversity desired has not yet been achieved.

To put it more simply, if you’re just going to sit around and jaw about good ol’ discrimination, then what the hell is the point?

I have my own biases against higher education and I have my reasons for having ’em. And so the question that remains, is something along the lines of: What else is broke? The spectacle of Nancy Hopkins getting ready to kneel before the porcelain god and blow chunks, is quite a silly and distracting one, but it threatens to conceal multiple layers of intellectual dysfunction beneath the surface. Educators at all levels are frequently heard to say “I’m not here to teach you what to think, I’m here to teach you how to think.” They mold and shape the minds of tomorrow’s leaders.

So…how are they teaching students to think? It seems “don’t do it” would be the most accurate answer to that one.

Is this what the boardrooms of tomorrow are like, then? All the most luminous and educated minds in a given organization meet to re-investigate some perplexing problem…dealing with sales, marketing, diversity — perhaps the defense of the nation? Perhaps halting the spread of AIDS, or the curing of Cancer, or whatever plague has replaced those two? And…if-and-when any one amongst them dares to say “Hey, I notice there may be one or several ancillary causes to this problem we should think about inspecting” — he’s out on his ass?

That seems pretty dire. And more than a little ridiculous. But, but, but. Why should I not ponder such a thing? This is Harvard. Creme de la creme of our educational community. They suffered a little bit of embarrassment for a little while, and then I have to assume they went back to their usual way of doing things, eventually replacing Larry Summers with a Radcliffe feminist. So we know how they work, and there’s no reason to think there are too many universities that work any differently.

All those who acknowledge the truism of Think I Know #93 above, and wonder why it is so. Behold.

Nurseries of tomorrow’s leaders. Concerned? Should we be? How much?

More on the Summers thing:

1. Larry Summers and Women Scientists
2. Summers’ Comments on Women and Science Draw Ire
3. Sex, Summers — And The Return of Human Nature
4. The Larry Summers Show Trial
5. Don’t Worry Your Pretty Little Head: The Pseudo-Feminist Show Trial of Larry Summers
6. Harvard Womens’ Group Rips Summers

Tolerance and Intolerance

Sunday, February 25th, 2007

In early 21st-century America, we have a disturbing predilection for calling out tolerance as intolerance, and vice-versa. It seems to start when we observe someone going out of their way to announce their beliefs and values, and indulge in using the lengthier of those two intangible nouns to caption that. “Intolerance.” Of course we do that for the express purpose of smacking it down, from scolding it to proscribing it. And the irony is, that to spring in to such action provoked only by the evidence of that other person’s belief systems — and nothing else at all — is the very definition of intolerance.

Now, I’m undecided about whether this is a good example of what I’m talking about. It seems the infraction is more along the lines of intended offense, rather than the mere manifestation of personal belief; the intent certainly does appear to be there. So perhaps a better illustration can be found elsewhere.

Nevertheless, I maintain the principal of Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School is on a treacherous and slippery slope.

A Catholic school principal has organized sensitivity training for students who shouted “We love Jesus” during a basketball game against a school with Jewish students.

The word “Jew” also was painted on a gym wall behind the seats of Bishop Sullivan Catholic High School students attending the Feb. 2 game at Norfolk Academy, said Dennis W. Price, principal of the Virginia Beach school.

Price who also watched the game, said the rivals exchanged chants, “Then, at some point, our students were chanting, ‘We love Jesus.'”

“It was obviously in reference to the Jewish population of Norfolk Academy; that’s the only way you can take that,” he added.

Price said he sent a letter of apology to Norfolk. Dennis G. Manning, the academy’s headmaster, declined to comment.

Several Sullivan students met with Norfolk Academy’s cultural diversity club Thursday as part of a series of events aimed at promoting tolerance, Price said.

Thus far, I have not yet seen the trend fail: Whenever someone in a position of authority uses those four words in sequence, “aimed at promoting tolerance,” something that had previously been tolerated, no longer will be, and it is soon to be subjected to intolerance.

I think our use of these words could use a little work.

Would The United Nations Stop An Asteroid?

Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Ben Shapiro has really hit his stride. That, or I’ve finally learned how to appreciate him.

Either way, this is exactly what a column should be. Thinking outside-o-the-box, but just a little bit; adhering to and commenting on the current state of affairs; offering a sound but unstated reason why we should pay attention; devastating a silly idea by taking it seriously.

Masterful work.

Scientists reported this week that on April 13, 2036, an asteroid has a 1 in 45,000 chance of hitting Earth…An entire city or region could bite the dust.

“We need a set of general principles to deal with this issue,” explains former astronaut Rusty Schweickart. To that end, scientists are calling on the United Nations to take action. The Association of Space Engineers will present a plan to the UN in 2009 involving the construction of a “Gravity Tractor,” which would alter the course of potentially threatening asteroids.

You can just imagine what the UN member states will have to say about this idea.

IRAN: “Space is a decadent Western lie. It does not exist. Asteroids are no more real than the Zionist Entity. It is possible, however, that the 12th imam is riding this so-called space rock. In that case, we can only hope that he steers it into a large building in a major American city.”

CHINA: “Such use of space simply escalates the global arms race. Who is to say that America will not construct such a ‘Gravity Tractor’ in an attempt to nullify our missile capabilities? Of course, we were never thinking of using such missiles anyway, but it’s the principle of the thing!”

Amid all the hubbub about the way President Bush and his administration have handled the whole Iraq thing, for the last four years I have yet to hear anyone of any political stripe step forward and begin to defend the way the U.N. has handled it. And that’s just a little surprising to me because here in 2007, I don’t have to wait very long to hear the U.N. advanced, rather breezily and empty-headedly, as the sure-fire solution to…whatever perplexing conundrum pops up. Asteroids to Malaria to hangnails to crazy tinpot dictators to nuclear weapons to — just name it.

Shapiro’s question, sarcastic as the artful delivery may be, is a good one for everyone regardless of their leanings. What do we really expect the United Nations to do? About anything?

Spanking Bill Stuck In Corner

Sunday, February 25th, 2007

Take a look at this.

Spanking bill is introduced, which is exactly like what it sounds like…the nanny-state wants to stick it’s big fat nose into how you raise your kid in California. Bill is introduced, it’s little itty-bitty news. Gotta be in the right place at the right time to find out about it. Bill gets dropped, and it is heap-big news. You hear about it over and over again. At least that was my experience with it.

Kind of funny in a sad way. Everyone wants to be oh so vigilant against “government taking away our constitutional rights,” chomping at the bit to find out what kind of potential abuse is about to take place, so we can hit the road with our pitchforks and torches. Yeah. Right.

We think of ourselves that way, but we don’t act like it. Government was about to tell us how to raise our kids. And they’re going to try again, count on it. We were instructed to start paying attention when the bill died, and not a minute before; the threat to our “civil liberties” arose when the bill first came up.

Update: It would seem they did try for it again, the very same day.

When it comes to disciplining California children, an open hand is in but belts and switches are out, according to a bill introduced Thursday by Democratic San Jose area Assemblywoman Sally Lieber.

Assembly bill 755, designed specifically to protect children from overzealous discipline methods, rules out some traditional forms of discipline like the use of a switch or a belt.

“The vast majority of child abuse victims and fatalities are young children,” Lieber said. “Too often the abuse begins as some form of discipline. Existing law is clearly not doing enough to protect the youngest, smallest, most vulnerable members of our society.”

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, of Irvine, had expressed concern for early drafts of the bill and said he intends to keep a close eye on the new bill.

“I’m going to remain a skeptical observer and watch it very carefully,” DeVore said.

The Republican assemblyman said his concerns stem from what he said were parents’ rights to privacy and whether this new law would actually protect children or put otherwise good parents in trouble with the law.

I see there’s apparently some kind of rule in place with this new bill, which allows the spanking with the open hand. The rule is that when you list the things that the new bill would still penalize, you have to mention these two present-tense verbs: “burning” and “kicking.” Those two are particularly potent in inspiring the desired response.

But that isn’t the real issue. Shoot down this new bill, and then go home and burn your kid or kick your kid. Tell the cops about it. You think nothing will happen, just because this new law didn’t pass? Those are already against the law; they are just big fat red herrings. The real issue is where the line is being drawn. And the line is being drawn with the wooden spoon.

This is such a slick hoodwinking job. The situation is unchanged — some hippie flower-child doesn’t approve of parents disciplining their kids, and she’s gone through all the motions of “listening” and “revising” when all that’s really happened, is she’s watered down her nanny-state law to the point it has an excellent chance of passage.

Sure it allows spanking by open hand. That’s this year. Sure, there’s no conflict at all between the things I did to discipline my kid, and what this law addresses. My kid never got spanked with a “foreign” object, not once. So the new bill doesn’t prohibit anything I actually used. Not this year. But it’s the camel’s nose in the tent. Like I said, we enjoy running around saying we’ll be on-guard against surrendering our freedoms to the government — but we don’t follow through on that.

Friends and Family

Sunday, February 25th, 2007

The House of Eratosthenes, otherwise known as “The Blog That Nobody Reads,” has changed it’s policy.

The policy has been unchanged from the very beginning and is recorded…um…to the right of my left ear, and to the left of my right one, somewhere. Anyway. Those things you get in the e-mail from friends and family with funny stuff? Sometimes with that thing on the bottom telling you of the awful stuff that will happen to you if you don’t forward it to ten people you know?

We get as much of that stuff as anyone. And we haven’t been running it. The rule has been, since it always seems to have come off a website somewhere, in order to give credit to the original author we put out a good-faith effort to find out who created it. And until such a good-faith effort comes to fruition, we don’t post anything. Which up until now has meant, for the most part, nothing gets posted.

The reason we have to change it, is — well, this is just too good. And it only took a little bit of searching to discover it seems that everyone has had a hand in it, and if there is any one single author who can claim credit, it may very well be the act of e-mail forwarding itself. You know, working in kind of a Darwinese type of evolution survival-of-the-fittest thing.

That would mean if anyone comes along later and says “Hey, I’m the guy who wrote that first” the correct answer would be…well yeah, you are, kinda. And so is that guy over there, and that other guy, and…anyway. Like I said, it’s too good to ignore. And for the reasons above, I can’t provide a link.


WORDS WOMEN USE:

1. Fine:
this is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.

2. Five Minutes:
If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five Minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.

3. Nothing:
This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine.

4. Go Ahead:
This is a dare, not permission. Don’t Do It!

5. Loud Sigh:
This is not actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to #3 for the meaning of nothing.)

6. That’s Okay:
This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That’s okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.

7. Thanks:
A woman is thanking you, do not question, or Faint. Just say you’re welcome.

8. Whatever:
Is a women’s way of saying FUCK YOU!

9. Don’t worry about it, I’ve got it:
Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking “what’s wrong”, for the woman’s response refer to # 3.

10. No:
This is the most complicated word a woman can use with a man. This is because she will say no, and mean no, or she will say no but mean yes. You will never get this right no matter what, so it is best not to try. Just remember, if she has salad and you have fries or pizza and you offer her some and and she says no, allow her to eat off of your plate without questioning her, or better yet, just give her half. This may also mean she is upset when she says she is not, and if you dare to ask “why” she will either respond with “nothing” — refer to # 3, or I’m “fine” — refer to # 1.