House of Eratosthenes

Yeah yeah, you don’t care what my thoughts are on the New York Times stock price, and why it’s been doing what it’s been doing. Well, in a round-a-bout way, that’s kind of the point I wish to make.

Maureen Dowd writes in “The Incredible Lightness of George W. Bush”,

The open-microphone incident at the G-8 lunch in St. Petersburg on Monday illustrated once more that W. never made any effort to adapt. The president has enshrined his immaturity and insularity, turning every environment he inhabits � no matter how decorous or serious � into a comfortable frat house.

No matter what the trappings or the ceremonies require of the leader of the free world, he brings the same DKE bearing and cadences, the same insouciance and smart-alecky attitude, the same simplistic approach � swearing, swaggering, talking to Tony Blair with his mouth full of buttered roll, and giving a startled Angela Merkel an impromptu shoulder rub. He can make even a global summit meeting seem like a kegger.

Catching W. off-guard, the really weird thing is his sense of victimization. He�s strangely resentful about the actual core of his job. Even after the debacles of Iraq and Katrina, he continues to treat the presidency as a colossal interference with his desire to mountain bike and clear brush.

In snippets of overheard conversation, Mr. Bush says he has not bothered to prepare any closing remarks and grouses about having to listen to other world leaders talk too long. What did he think being president was about?

The world may be blowing up, and the president may have a rare opportunity to jaw-jaw about bang-bang with his peers, but that pales in comparison with his burning desire to return to his feather pillow and gym back at the White House.

The link to the article requires a TimesSelect subscription. Or…you can just lift it out of a blog somewhere.

And that’s really the point I want to make. The New York Times has a lot of stuff in it, including Dowd’s opinion. Some of it I can read online for nothing, some of it I can register to read, but for which I am still not expected to pay any money. The opinion of Maureen Dowd, oh, that right there is the Mother’s Milk. That right there is the Keys to the Kingdom. I must pay for this one, and if I’m not willing to pay for it, I shouldn’t have it. That other stuff, I can have for the asking.

Good logic? Well, let’s look into it.

What kinds of things do we call “news”? What, exactly, am I selling to you when I print up a newspaper, and you buy it? Let’s see…President Bush may have brokered some important deals at the G-8 summit, and then he might have rubbed Chancellor Merkel’s back and gotten that hilarious reaction out of her (which unbelievably, I’m told, some people have not actually seen so here is your link). Anyway, I could tell you about the deals to which President Bush agreed, or I could tell you about the Merkel incident, or I could tell you about both. If I choose to tell you about both, I put the deals in one section of my paper and the backrub in a wholly different section of my paper. Or not. In making that decision, I use the very best judgment I can muster. This is the job of the editor, and it is one of anticipating what it is you are going to want. It is an objective of “superior mediocrity”; there is no standard for excellence in what I’m doing, only adequacy. What I’m endeavoring to do, is avoid the catastrophe of you buying my paper, reading it, and then being told elsewhere about something you would like to know, and learning about it for the first time even though you bought my paper.

This is why newspaper editors aren’t very happy people, I think. There really is no way to be an excellent newspaper editor. The very best newspaper editor, out of all of ’em, is going to be the best because he makes the decisions most generally expected of him; if he wants to be better than some other editor, he has to wait for that other editor to make an anomalous decision, and then make the equivalent decision himself without the anomaly. There is no other way to compete. It is a profession of superior adherence to orthodoxy, a profession of non-deviance. Non-deviance, from a standard that isn’t actually defined anywhere.

But my objective is to define why the New York Times stock price is slipping, not why newspaper editors in general are unhappy.

So I may deliver to you, some facts, and I may categorize those facts in such a way that you, a reader endeavoring to learn certain things, may easily find them. This is valuable. But it is on a downslide, because if you don’t learn about the Merkel Massage from my paper, you may learn about it from a zillion other places. Now, if it’s two centuries ago and you and I are both travelling on foot, in opposite directions, and meet up — now we’re having a different conversation. I know something you don’t know, and within minutes we’re exchanging precious things. We will alter our travel schedules for it by setting up that night’s camp on that spot, and probably form a lifetime companionship. Life goes on, however, and in 2006 news isn’t quite that valuable anymore; at least, news from a particular source is not that valuable anymore.

Okay, next. I may form an opinion about the state of affairs, from the news. And therein lies my critique. The New York Times appears to be run as a kingdom, like any other printed newspaper; a kingdom in which those who gather the facts, may ascend to the rank of mere knights, whereas those who form opinions from the facts, soar to the highest levels of nobility. Bush is a frat boy. Bush is anti-intellectual. Bush does not take his job seriously.

These all may be true, but here in real-life-land, they’d still be relatively worthless. I’m sure the hardcore left-wing moonbats would have to agree with me about that. Fresh off their latest gut-chuckle from watching the Merkel-backrub video yet again, propositioned to sacrifice their opportunity to have learned about the clip in exchange for simply getting Maureen Dowd’s take on it second-hand, there’d be few takers.

Yet The Times acts as if Maureen Dowd’s personal opinion is the premium product amongst their offerings. If the New York Times is a watch shop, this is the thing that goes in the lockable cabinet, which you may not inspect until you ask for the help of the staff.

And then there is the point of Dowd’s column. One of those shining, jeweled opinions about the state of affairs, that isn’t even an opinion about the state of affairs. It’s yet another European-style opinion, encrusted with that wonderful lodestone, the word “should.” The opinion about what other people should do. The opinion of what Maureen Dowd would be doing if she were President, which she is not.

If the Dowd product is the creme de la creme from the New York Times catalog, said lodestone is the creme de la creme within that product. In real life, this is the most ordinary out of the ordinary.

This is worth even less than the inference drawn about the state of affairs. This is exactly like the beverage order of the person in line behind you at your local Starbuck’s. To a consumer of the New York Times, this is simply a personal preference, formed by a person who is not him. Nothing more.

My own FAQ addresses this in attempting to answer the question I get most often, “Why do you call yourself ‘The Blog That Nobody Reads’?”

Humility: I have a blog. That doesn’t make me more correct about things, or even for that matter smarter, than someone who doesn’t have a blog, or even someone who’s never heard of a “blog.” My blog started out as a way to make notes on things, and record hyperlinks supporting those notes, on the web where I could get to the information from any location. It was never really even designed, as a primary objective, to be read. People are reading my blog now. I notice other people, who are watched by lots and lots of people and know they’re being watched by lots and lots of people, gradually swing around to the supposition that they are smart because of this, and therefore don’t need to research the opinions they have. Hey, look at all the people watching me, I must be right. I don’t want to fall into that trap.

This is reason #1, out of many. Anyway, Maureen Dowd, it would appear, has fallen into that trap. Along with her employer.

Now all of the above, you might say, is just a windy rant about how I shouldn’t be forced to purchase a Times Select subscription just to get Maureen Dowd’s opinion. But my personal opinion about what the Times should do, is worth nothing more than Dowd’s opinion about what the President should do. What might be worth just a little bit more to the nobodies who come by to read my blog, I suspect, could be the connection I make between this and the steady trend of increasing alienation between the Times, and the people who read it. This still isn’t worth much, because I’m not the first person to notice it. And of course, there’s always that troubling possibility that I’m completely wrong.

But it’s an accurate reflection of what I, myself, am after when I crack open a newspaper. And I suspect I’m not alone. Stuff that happened, I’d like to know, and I’d like to know early on. What I’m to think about what happened, you know what? I can figure that out for myself thank you very much.

That’s life. But fortunately for the nobility of the newspaper empires, such as Duchess Dowd, real life is not reflected within their kingdoms. The nobility, therein, manage to pull in much bigger paychecks, and I suspect claim much better parking spaces, than the knights who figure out what’s actually happening, and thus offer a substantially more valuable product. The Kingdom is supposed to be plugged in to what “everybody” is thinking, but if it were, the knights would be enjoying positions of prestige and power, while the nobility would clean up after their horses. But the walls are up, and the cloistered court is in place. If the nobility manages to appreciate this, I have doubts about their gratitude being shared by the New York Times stockholders.

Update: The left-wing website Common Dreams gets ahold of an editorial in a paper from my old stomping grounds, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which in turn tries to draw a parallel between the Merkel thing and that other deal where President Clinton received sexual favors from a much-younger female subordinate, while on the phone to members of Congress about troop deployments to Bosnia, and coached his secretary to tell investigators “we were never alone, right?” And perjury before the grand jury, perjury in the Paula Jones civil suit, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. The editorial also makes an argument that our current President’s behavior constitutes sexual harrassment according to some busybody United Nations rulebook. Draw your own conclusions.

i’m so bored, i’m looking to you to entertain me….

“A zillion posts in a row where you snark away, and essentially say nothing.”

let’s review again ( a “zillion”? what are you? a little girl?!):

you said “x blah blah y blah blah” and i said “that’s not right”, and you said “what i meant was lines are long because there isn’t enough money to hire waiters”, and i explained hiring practices to you (btw, if, as a proprietor, you’re able to attend to a line of people with one server as opposed to several servers, why hire more? which one of us is the conservative again?!).

i’ve corrected your errors for you and explained to you some fundamentals of commerce, and all i get in return is a botched analogy, followed by some clumsy backpeddling, a false dichotomy, countless unsupported charges and lots of petulant whining. and i’m the one who’s saying nothing?!

here’s my first comment to you; you know, the one that sent you into that defensive panic. maybe you could highlight for me and your readers exactly what it was about this comment (aside from the atrocious spelling) that you felt i was “post worthy”:

“A conservative says ‘you sell X many widgets at $4 a pop, and Y many at $5, Y is bound to be less than X.’ This is a simple economic truism.”

very simple, indeed. however, your analogy ius[sic] flawed: in raising the minimum wage, x is no longer a consideration.

as for your “11% versus 12%”, it’s only relevant in a presidential election. that anomolous[sic] 1% may decide all seats, some seats or only one seat, no way of knowing. but you should expect dem gains to excede[sic] losses this year. that’s for house, senate and governor seats.

and jonathan leffingwell is a jackass whose logic is as flawed as your own.

why, the nerve of me! leffingwell’s not your lover, is he? that would explain the bitter reaction.

“And you say I’m boring.”

yer a dime a dozen, bub.

you wingnuts tend to react to challenge with indignance and frustration (did you google “socratic method” yet?). and i never met a wingnut who didn’t immediately play the “you hurt my feelings” card when cornered with his own blunders. it’s bad enough you’re a prick, but disingenuous prick is a bit much, don’t you think?

“QED…
You assume QED is somehow being used wrongly, without bothering to look it up?”

lol! yeah, that’s what happened! (did i mention unsupportable charges? i did? okay then….)

when i play at purposefully obtuse, i invest the performance with humor and an obvious understanding of the subject. you? not so much. you just come off as obtuse.

“Talk about entrenched thinking.”

(if only the red herrings you nuts threw at me were the genuine article, i could feed more people than jesus….)

“entrenched thinking”, eh? aren’t you the guy who believes opinion of a given subject should not be swayed by study of that same subject? *snort!*

and you never answered my question (i doubt you ever give straight answers, but i’ll go ahead and throw it in your face again):

if i haven’t cited any studies, how did i prove your point regarding liberals and studies?

i eagerly await your dodges, non-answers and spelling corrections.

KEvron
- KEvronius | 07/23/2006 @ 01:52
you said “x blah blah y blah blah” and i said “that’s not right”, and you said “what i meant was lines are long because there isn’t enough money to hire waiters”…

I’m sorry, but that’s an incorrect encapsulation of the argument so I’m unable to continue it from that juncture.

I see no reason to Google the “Socratic method” since you’re demonstrating it for me, right? It’s a bunch of name-calling and complaining about being bored, right?

Explained to me some fundamentals of commerce: You’ve provided instructions to me me to ignore X, simply because you want me to ignore X. You’ve indulged in an unsupported article-of-faith, that business owners will be able to find whatever money they need to find, to hire people at a more expensive rate. That’s all I have in my notes. Did I leave something out?

You seem to be bored a lot. Here are some tips.

1. Don’t look to “boring” people to entertain you.
2. Tackle the subject. I say you buy X widgets at $4, Y at $5, Y must be less than X and you say nuh-huh, explain why. All you’ve done is go off on one colossal tangent, and then re-cap the ensuing dialog incorrectly (in the wrong post).
3. Throttle back on this intellectually vapid activity of telling people what opinions they’re supposed to have about things. Let others decide for themselves if I’m in a defensive panic, if my analogies are botched, whether my dichotomies are false, whether my “charges” are unsupported and whether my whining is petulant. And, come to think of it, whether your understanding of business is obvious. Since the only assertion you’ve really made is that money is unlimited by its very nature, I have to doubt many business owners would find this to demonstrate an “obvious” understanding of business.
4. Get over your hatred of Jon Leffingwell, who has nothing to do with what we’ve been discussing. And your hatred of little girls, who also have nothing to do with what we’ve been discussing.
5. Get a job. It’s clear you don’t have one and have never had one, or if you have, you’ve learned nothing from it. Maybe, as a waiter. See how many tables you can effectively service on your own. (It tops out, if you’re really good, at about seven before you start screwing up.) Better yet, start a business, and go as long as you can without hiring ANYONE. Once you find it unavoidable to add people to the payroll, with funds that are always limited, I’d be interested in hearing from you.
6. Stay away from the blogs. Especially the ones you say are boring.
7. If you can’t stay away from the blogs, take the time to read the one you say is boring, who then makes fun of you repeatedly for continuing to show up.
8. And if you read the posts in the boring blog that make fun of you for continuing to show up, take a break from trying to intimidate the blogger to march in lock-step with your sheltered points-of-view about business, especially when he himself calls his blog “The Blog That Nobody Reads.” Rather silly to try to pummel a blogger into submission when he himself says nobody’s reading his blog anyway, right? With the weather so nice this time of year?
9. Follow along with things that can’t be explained in under ten seconds. Maybe then you’ll start putting your comments under the right post.

I have more, but I got a feeling if you implement just half of those, you’ll take your first steps into a larger world and find life to be generally less boring.
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2006 @ 10:23
1) when life gives you lemmons….

2) ah! i get it. simply state an irrelevant precept, and your whole argument unbeatable. let me try:

one and one are two.

there. everything i’ve said on the subject must be right, or are you telling me one and one are not two?

3) lol! not an intellectually honest bone in your body, is there?!

4) i’ll do my best.

5) i’ll do my best.

6) i’ll do my best.

7) must be all those studies i’ve cited….

8) more panic.

9) i’ll do my best.

this is fun afterall!

but do you suppose you’ll get around to a direct response anytime soon?

KEvron
- KEvronius | 07/23/2006 @ 11:44
“I’m sorry, but that’s an incorrect encapsulation of the argument….”

i’d be happy to retrieve the relevant comments for you.

KEvron
- KEvronius | 07/23/2006 @ 11:46
but do you suppose you’ll get around to a direct response anytime soon?

In order to hypothetically accomodate you, you would have to write something worth responding to. That’s how it works – you make a point, and mk responds. You didn’t make a point. Therefore, there is nothing to respond to.

Go back to the kiddie pool with Greenwald and the other children. Leave the thinking to the adults.
- Good Lieutenant | 07/23/2006 @ 16:22
PS – Capital letters and grammar are your friends, KEvronius.

You’ll thank me for the technical stickling someday when you need to get a job and have to write a cover letter.

Until then…try turning the flag right-side up to really impress us.
- Good Lieutenant | 07/23/2006 @ 16:26
“In order to hypothetically accomodate you, you would have to write something worth responding to[sic].”

you don’t end a sentence with a preposition, grammar nazi. and what does “hypotheically accomodate” mean?

“That’s how it works – you make a point, and mk responds. You didn’t make a point. Therefore, there is nothing to respond
to[sic]*.”

obtuse until the very end. you stay that course, kid! that’s all right, i’m done expecting any direct response from you.

(*ouch!)

“Go back to the kiddie pool with Greenwald and the other children. Leave the thinking to the adults.”

is that the best you’ve got? has that bit ever worked anywhere?

and the greenwald ref is lost on me.

“PS – Capital letters and grammar are your friends, KEvronius.”

right back atcha, kid!

“You’ll thank me for the technical stickling someday when you need to get a job and have to write a cover letter.”

too late to solicit from you a letter of recommendation?

funny that you mention the job thing again. i took a look at your activity on this blog, and it seems you post at all hours of the day. here’s a look at one weekday’s offerings:

2006-07-18
posted by mkfreeberg @ 6:32 AM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 8:15 AM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 9:06 AM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 9:41 AM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 10:53 AM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 3:18 PM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 7:28 PM

have you managed to turn your blogging efforts into a profitable cottage industry for yourself? if so, well done! and no need for an hr dept.

“Until then…try turning the flag right-side up to really impress us.”

why?

i eagerly await your evasive non-answers.

KEvron
- KEvronius | 07/23/2006 @ 18:02
oof! i’ve confused good(?)lt for mk! stoopid pot!

well, most of it stands….

KEvron
- KEvronius | 07/23/2006 @ 18:04
oof! i’ve confused good(?)lt for mk! stoopid pot!

Self explanatory. Another mouthbreather defeats himself with his own inanity and inability to read English in full view of the reading public. God Bless the First Amendment.

well, most of it stands…

Except, of course, the parts which were directed at the wrong person. Hence, none of it stands. Nicely done.

Illiterate. Snarky. Unemployed. A leftwingnut.

Congratulations – you are a walking leftwing stereotype.
- Good Lieutenant | 07/23/2006 @ 19:02
And one.
- Good Lieutenant | 07/23/2006 @ 19:03
“Self explanatory. Another mouthbreather defeats himself with his own inanity and inability to read English in full view of the reading public. God Bless the First Amendment.”

*yawn*

“Hence, none of it stands”

actually, i stand by all of it.

as it pertains to you:

“In order to hypothetically accomodate you, you would have to write something worth responding to[sic].”

you don’t end a sentence with a preposition, grammar nazi. and what does “hypotheically accomodate” mean?

“That’s how it works – you make a point, and mk responds. You didn’t make a point. Therefore, there is nothing to respond
to[sic]*.”

(*ouch!)

“Go back to the kiddie pool with Greenwald and the other children. Leave the thinking to the adults.”

is that the best you’ve got? has that bit ever worked anywhere?

and the greenwald ref is lost on me.

“PS – Capital letters and grammar are your friends, KEvronius.”

right back atcha, kid!

“You’ll thank me for the technical stickling someday when you need to get a job and have to write a cover letter.”

too late to solicit from you a letter of recommendation?

“Until then…try turning the flag right-side up to really impress us.”

why?

and as it pertains to mk:

funny that you mention the job thing again. (“again” is inaccurate, but your charge serves as an opener for this observation)

i took a look at your activity on this blog, and it seems you post at all hours of the day. here’s a look at one weekday’s offerings:

2006-07-18
posted by mkfreeberg @ 6:32 AM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 8:15 AM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 9:06 AM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 9:41 AM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 10:53 AM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 3:18 PM
posted by mkfreeberg @ 7:28 PM

have you managed to turn your blogging efforts into a profitable cottage industry for yourself? if so, well done! and no need for an hr dept.

while this was intended for mk, in retrospect it applies to the both of you:

i eagerly await your evasive non-answers.

you didn’t disappoint.

“Illiterate.”

and who is that aimed at[sic]?

“Snarky.”

you, i and our host. your point?

“Unemployed.”

lol! no, i’m a self-employed blogger, i swear! god bless adsense!

“A leftwingnut.”

guilty as charged, comrade.

“Congratulations – you are a walking leftwing stereotype.”

must be all those studies i cite….

KEvron
- KEvronius | 07/23/2006 @ 19:50
actually, i stand by all of it.

So you are a fool…

oof! i’ve confused good(?)lt for mk! stoopid pot!

Your previous stroke of genius – followed with….

must be all those studies i cite…

High Times doesn’t count as “study.”

guilty as charged, comrade.

Thank you. It is not often that one comes out and quantifies their level of insanity at will. At least you’re the real deal.

Whew! That was easy.

I await your pointless string of psychobabble with glee. You are rather like actus, but without the constraints of grammatical opression.
- Good Lieutenant | 07/23/2006 @ 20:03
“grammatical oppression”
- Good Lieutenant | 07/23/2006 @ 20:05
“grammatical oppression”

a stroke of genius….

KEvron
- KEvronius | 07/23/2006 @ 21:03
oof! i’ve confused good(?)lt for mk! stoopid pot!

You know what’s sad?

That little statement is the smartest thing you’ve said thus far.
- Good Lieutenant | 07/23/2006 @ 21:05
“That little statement is the smartest thing you’ve said thus far.”

and you have yet to surpass “and one”….

yer turn.

KEvron
- KEvronius | 07/23/2006 @ 22:25
Nope. You’ve dismembered yourself sufficiently enough.

I want to savor.

And one.
- Good Lieutenant | 07/23/2006 @ 23:38
Kevron, I would have to say if you were still bored yesterday, there’s just no hope for you m’man.

Regarding the “studies”…

I said…

…eight-and-a-half goes into thirty three times, not four. One of my prospective employees must go back home, to circle more Help Wanted ads and yammer at Mom to bring some more grits to his bedroom door while watching Saturday morning cartoons.

Liberals have an answer for that, too. They “do studies,” and then come out and say things like “our study found no measurable negative impact on employment.”

So…the study says I do not need to send one of the four home to mother.

Listen, facts is facts, and I realize for you, facts are stupid things, but you can’t deny the absolute honest truth of those surveys. Raising the minimum wage has had absolutely no adverse effect on job growth, no matter how much you stomp and kick and hold your breath til you’re blue in the face, Amy.

Now, I have a degree in finance and accounting. I can probably argue rings around you…

—
Posted by Carl to House of Eratosthenes at 7/15/2006 11:02:15 AM

Whereupon Carl, with his arguing prowess and his account degree, picked up his marbles and went home, sending you in to take his place…

KEv,

I got a live one for you…

http://mkfreeberg.blogspot.com
Actor212 | Homepage | 07.15.06 – 11:03 am | #

You came in to pick up Carl’s fallen horse and suit-of-armor and sword and shield and lance and whatever-have-you, and came up with this piece of brilliance…

i’m sorry, but your anecdotal evidence (centered primarily around lines, and the infernal minimum wage that causes them)would get you laughed out of ec 101.

and you’re starting to bore me.

KEvron

—
Posted by KEvronius to House of Eratosthenes at 7/20/2006 12:45:48 AM

It’s all academics vs. reality. Studies, surveys, EC 101 classes. They’re all academics. What they have in common, is they have persuasive power right up until reality contradicts them, and then reality pulls rank.

Some misguided fellow might insist the study trumps reality. Usually, he’s got a degree, with a college-sized ego inextricably tangled up with said degree. Or, he could just be patently obnoxious. To him, if the study says water compresses, and reality has a disturbing effect on this, the study is just as worthy of obeisance after the collision with reality, as it was before. Perhaps even moreso. EC 101 classes, studies, surveys. All the same as far as this goes.

In this case, you’re huffing and puffing and babbling incoherently about EC 101, to contradict the simple statement that 4 * 8.5 is more than thirty…OR…that if you accept this simple arithmetic equation, this will have on effect on supply-and-demand.

Why? Nobody knows. You won’t say. Good Lt. and I have both pointed out you’re essentially just spewing. If I take a guess at where you’re going with it, you just spew some more.

None of which says much about the minimum wage — which, it should be noted, hasn’t actually been increased, or even maintained, when you take inflation into account. But my original point was not about min. wage, it was about the way liberals argue. They huff and puff. They coerce. They draw upon their studies and treat said studies as golden calves, able to contradict simple truisms like 4 * 8.5 > 30, soaring majestically above the lowly skeptics who might dare to question it.

It’s a bypassing of critical, independent thinking, and you’ve proven my point wonderfully. Except for the desire to change the subject when you’re cornered, that there isn’t so much “liberal” stuff as “pothead” stuff.

Let me take a guess: They should legalize it, right?
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2006 @ 07:45
“….it was about the way liberals argue.”

duh.

consider that mindset; what can counter?

your theory of lines was a delight, though….

KEvron
- KEvronius | 07/24/2006 @ 08:07

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

I Know Why It Looks Like ThisSaturday, July 22nd, 2006

I Know Why It Looks Like This
Saturday, July 22nd, 2006