| (insert clever title here) |

---

my least favorite voice on the conservative rant-wagon (for now, anyway; i mean, with so many motoring mouths offering mistruths, poor conclusions, and illogic, it’s hard to focus on just one for any length of time…) is charles krauthammer. i read somewhere (christine’s blog, perhaps?) where he’s considered by some to be “one of the greatest thinkers of our time.”

perhaps.

and i guess snoop dogg is one of our greatest musicians, eminem one of our greatest poets, and w one of our greatest presidents…

anyway, all my envious character assassinations aside, here’s a quote from a piece he wrote that appeared in yesterday’s ajc:

liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. new york times columnist charles blow chided obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.”

let’s compare that with a statement from this past week from the opening speech at the (stupidi)tea party convention:

people who could not even spell the word ‘vote’, or say it in english, put a committed socialist ideologue in the white house. his name is barack hussein obama…

the speaker then lamented the fact that…

…we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.

hmmm… a lot of white southerners tried to keep this kind of thing on the books for years, to make it difficult for blacks to vote. but at least it’s good that someone at the convention was at least honest about the racist nature of the ‘party’…

and the ’someone’ who gave this obviously controversy-seeking speech? former u.s. representative and staunchly-anti-immigrant presidential candidate tom tancredo – from colorado, no less, the home of a lot of the organizations making up the most anti-Christlike arm of evangelical Christians.

you know, the (simplici)tea party wouldn’t be all that fun to pick on if it weren’t for the blatant contradictions poured out every time two of its ‘leaders’ open their mouths.

i keep saying this over and over: you couldn’t even make this stuff up…

---

caught a few minutes of the beginning of mark levin’s show last night. his lead discussion was centered on the snowstorm that was rapidly approaching washington d.c.. he commented on the fact that america had had a noticeable share of bitter cold weather this year.

of course, you didn’t have to be a genius to see where his monologue was headed.

so, being a genius…



…i didn’t stick around.

you know, by the (typical il)logic i guessed he was going to share with his racist, lemming-esque audience, we need only focus on babe ruth’s 0-for-4 games and draw a defensible conclusion that ruth wasn’t any kind of major league caliber player.

and, by that same reasoning, we need only focus on new morning’s ‘if dogs run free’ and shot of love’s ‘lenny bruce’ and conclude that dylan has no songwriting talent.

and, following that same thought-line, we could listen to mark levin’s radio show, hear a single (though random) useful-for-airing point he made (of course, you’d have to wait awhile…), and conclude that he is an intelligent thought-leader worthy of his vast following.

ahem.

as any amateur mathematician knows, statistics aren’t built on the isolated examples in small sample populations.

of greater note is the fact that he failed to lead off with the day’s news of the nearly half-a-percentage point drop in the unemployment rate. this is certainly more telling of his consistently selective use of facts than his global warming analysis.

(now, personally, i think global warming has turned – like all grant- and government-money funded endeavors, into a walk-up-to-the-trough feeding frenzy for anyone with a green idea. in fact, i read where linda blair got a $100,000 green grant for something to do with peas… however, the ultimate target of reducing fossil fuel dependency is a necessary thing – regardless, to me, of the hysteria used to get there – despite what all the republican-crony drill-here-drill-now thieves and selfish ‘conservatives’ want to believe.)

both sides no doubt will put their spin on the new unemployment figure – democrats saying that the stimulus worked, although it’s clear that’s not a provable assertion no matter how many different ways you analyze the data (after all, it’s another stat, right?); republicans arguing that the economy is showing its historically cyclical nature, and that job growth has actually been slower than it would have been without the stimulus spending.

but all that can be inferred in isolated drops in unemployment – and deep cold spells – is that they cannot be used to disprove a longer-term view of reality.

just ask the eskimos, who see first hand the melting of the polar ice caps.

and the penguins, who need to watch their steps so they don’t wind up on a section of ice breaking off into the ocean.

and, of course, ask a lot of your neighbors – after all, nearly one out of every ten of them remains jobless.

| ever evolving thoughts (1) |

---

so i’m thinking yesterday about being a loner. and, officially – at least as determined by those who give tests for a living – high intelligence.

certainly the destruction i’ve caused in my life – and the abject failure i’ve ‘accomplished’ in many areas in it – proves, to some extent, the former, though obviously questions the latter.

but it is what it is.

and it seems to be a pattern in my children, my wife, in my parents, perhaps in my sisters, and up the immediate line of my family.

so how could ‘loner’ and ‘intelligent’ pair up like this?

here’s what i came up with.

(a) the acorn doesn’t fall from the oak. duh. perhaps environments contribute the most, and kids emulate their parents from one generation to the next.

seems legitimate. and certainly likely.

but here’s the thing: my daughters want friends and relationships. my wife, too, to some extent. i’m not sure about my sisters, but i had many moments in my life when i regretted not being part of the ‘in’ crowd.

now, you may say, ‘mike, you just lacked social skills, and these you could have easily learned if you tried.’

and, to that i say, ‘bullsh-t.’ my wife and my mother both will tell you that my daddy and i seem like ‘naturals’ when we’re in social gatherings – we talk well, we are funny, we seem completely in our element. i don’t know about my daddy, but i will tend to hang on the periphery if i can. but when vacuumed into the mix of things, we come across like born politicians, at home in what seems to be our place and position of choice.

and yet both of us will exhale with, ‘damn, i’m glad that’s over’ when, damn, it’s finally over.

so, here’s another reason the loner/intelligence pairing exists:

(b) there is safety in groups. and as man evolved (or in the six thousand years since creation, per bishop ussher) those who hung out away from those groups had to depend more on their wit and creativity to survive. certainly surviving alone couldn’t be based on brawn – the loner had to depend on his craftiness to make it to the ripe old age where he could retire with only half his 401k since even back then politicians were beholden to the banks who ran the world and … and …

sorry, wrong subject. for this post anyway…

anyway, the point is that the ten, say, away from the hundred, would have 4 who made it to the next generation, because six were unable to evade the jaws of saber-tooth tigers and the steps of wooly mammoths. and, since there was no way for the four survivors to go one-on-one with either of those animals, they were likely getting by on brains, not brawn.

so in the next generation, when 4 became 16, nature would select, say, eight of them as food – the eight of lesser intelligence, perhaps – and six with a little higher iq would pass on that intelligence to twenty offspring.

and on and on.

plus, this might further explain why there is a lot of creativity in my family. to survive, our ancestors wouldn’t have been able to survive on logic alone. they had to see the world and creatively construct ideas in a short amount of time (right brain), and then devise how to make something happen just as quickly (left brain).

it’s no surprise that addicts seem to naturally be loners – always saying in 12-step meetings how alcohol and drugs immediately made them into the person they ‘always wanted to be’ – comfortable with people, part of ‘a group’, etc. and, no, being a loner doesn’t lead to addiction, obviously. but it certainly shows up as a trait in recovery circles.

as does, perhaps surprisingly to you, what seems to be superior intelligence, all evidence of life success notwithstanding. i mean, after all – hiding drinks, finding dealers, evading the law, keeping jobs – these all require a good bit of cunning and smarts.

make sense?

to me, it does.

which is why, in my case, you’re probably still questioning the ‘intelligent’ half of the diagnosis…

| secret of my success |

---

boy … how true is this for the author of this blog… this is non sequitor (by wiley) for 1/17/10:

| morning musings – 01/13/10 |

---

thoughts this morning while riding the train:

is anyone but me getting tired of the bankers’ rag that says, ‘we have to pay these outrageous bonuses and ridiculour salaries to retain talent‘?

talent?

TALENT?!?!

what TALENT???!!

the ‘talent’ to send the world economy into the toilet? the ‘talent’ to knock 25% off the value of my house? the ‘talent’ to knock 60% off the value of my retirement accounts and college funds for my kids?

i cannot understand why finding that kind of ‘talent’ is so difficult.

listen: if you cannot find intelligent and skilled staff that will work for $500k or so, then the whole industry should be put on salary cap like the nfl.

the ‘talent’ they’re really looking for, however, is based less on financial acumen than on…

(a) …the ‘talent’ to leverage connections to ensure that the massive losses they ‘risk’ (and, by the way, achieved) in the games they play – with our money – is fully reimbursed by the taxpayers; and,

(b) …the ‘talent’ to leverage paid-off politicians to ensure that effective regulations on the finance industry are neither implemented nor enforced (sec).

---

chris dodd’s resignation was forced because of his threat to do (b) above – implement regulations on the finance industry.

---

mark mcgwire needs to do his 8th and 9th steps. a general mea culpa with excuses will not cut it with most folks.

major league baseball is, just like the banks, in need ‘effectice and enforced regulations.’ the most-home-runs list published in the ajc yesterday had asterisks near fully a third of the players, indicating the player was suspected of using steroids. sad.

---

i am tired of walking 30-40 minutes a day in teens and twenties. and my building’s heater has been broken at my end of the floor. upper 50s, low 60s all day for the last two weeks. if i wasn’t extremely lucky to even have a job, i’d sue for … for … something.

have a good day.

| (mis)truth in numbers |

---

question: what’s the most effective way to convince people what an __________ neal boortz really is?

answer: let him prove the point himself.

the atlanta-based company owning both atlanta’s major newspaper (the atlanta journal-constitution) and the most-listened-to talk radio station (wsb 750, which carries ‘the neal boortz show’), decided to marry the two. in addition to five-days-a-week airtime, they now give neal a saturday spot on the ajc opinion page.

fair disclosure: i’m certainly not the first liberal to come to a personal conclusion that he’s an __________.

but you’d be surprised how many conservatives write letters to the editor asking for boortz to be kicked back to doing only radio, claiming his bluster and less-than-threatening thinking shills do more harm than good to the conservative cause.

but that’s not what i want to talk about.

i want to talk about the column he wrote on saturday, january 9th: hey, olbermann, the lines are open.

the thrust of the piece was to cast doubt on a statistic olbermann used recently on his (olbermann’s) msnbc show:

“those fighting health care reform – not those debating its shape or its nuance – people who demand the status quo, they are killing 45,000 americans a year.”

now, i fully agree with neal on one aspect: it is quite appropriate – and necessary – to investigate statistics. one of the difficulties we face in having intelligent debate in america today is that, thanks to the internet, every person with an opinion can find a statistic somewhere that seems to support his argument. and, to be honest, neal paints a good picture as he argues that the 45,000 figure olbermann uses is pretty suspect. olbermann truly does do some creative extrapolation of an ‘american journal of public health’ study which examined 9,000 people between 1988 and 1994, tracking their mortality rate through 2000. and olbermann added to the number-playing, going for the emotional appeal at the end of his piece, saying that boortz and his ilk had nailed another ‘140 that very day’.

9,000 people.
1988.
1994.
2000.
140.

concrete numbers, put out on the table; analysis of them should rightly be done.

but olbermann’s numbers don’t reveal boortz’ __________.

boortz does that himself.

with the conscious attention to accuracy and precision quite representative of talk radio, boortz’ statement which prompted olbermann’s piece, and olbermann’s response, was presented in the column as this:

“obamacare … would do more damage to this country than a terrorist attack – and might end up killing more people.”

here’s the deal: when you put solid numbers out – as olbermann did – you at least have something to debate and analyze – and, from the debating and the analysis, draw conclusions one way or another.

but when you simply use smoke and mirrors – and vague terms like ‘more’, ‘might’ – you hide like the truth of what an __________ neal is, avoiding actually putting anything concrete on the table for debate.

now, granted: neal may have imprecisely (notice a theme here?) summarized in the column what he actually said on his radio show. on his broadcast he might have used some real numbers.

i don’t know because i choose not to listen to him.

but then neal seals his ajc piece with this precise proposition:

“as for obamacare doing more damage than a terrorist attack:…”

…of course, with that lead in, you’re expecting him to provide some facts and figures to bolster his argument, right?

silly you…

“…let’s discuss that after you’re denied a medical procedure due to advancing age; or when you realize that the quality of health care in this country has declined, as it inevitably will, under government control.”

i don’t know about you, but i’m truly overwhelmed by the myriad of numbers – based on historical data, studies, forecasts, etc. – and precise definitions neal uses in that incredibly logical and rational statement. what an excellent defense of his attack on the health care reform bills.

as i’ve said here on many occasions, talkers like neal – and sean, and rush, and mark – don’t, in themselves, scare me. they and their kind, to use a phrase Jesus used in reference to the poor, ‘will always be with us.’

what is frightening is that people listen to these ‘leaders’ and believe there’s truth in the lies and mistruths they offer.

listen, neal: if you want to question someone else’s stats, put out some of your own. but if you simply want to be vague, inciting non-thinkers with your emotional rhetoric, you might as well just stick to the common theme of talk radio:

“the sky is falling.”

| blizzard of 2010 |

---

the blizzard of 2010 hit atlanta with fury on thursday january 7th.

okay, not really… but we did have a nice dusting of snow. here are some pics from our home out in the boonies…

| it bears repeating |

---

in the wake of the terrorist near-attack on christmas day, i’d like to remind both my readers of what i wrote here a little less than a year ago:

i ask myself this: wasn’t it intelligence that proved to be insufficient in our decision to invade iraq? …

the bottom line is this: if we had spent the $2-3 trillion [we wasted in iraq] on beefing up our abilities to monitor our world, to gather intelligence, to make this data consistent across all agencies, to reduce the (self-perpetuating) bureaucracies that make it hard to keep this data accurate, and pull our soldiers out of harm’s way into bunkers where hidden cameras let them know if bin-laden wipes his butt with his right hand or his left, where would we be now in terms of self-defense on the world’s stage?

i’m just sayin’…

| obamanomics |

---

grabbed this book today from audible.com:

yes, you’re probably asking yourself, ‘mike, why would YOU pick up such a book that obviously seems to be a tool of the left-brain, right-wing, centrally-stupid sect of simpletons?’.

a fair question. but here’s the quote by ron paul on the back of the book:

“Every libertarian and free-market conservative who still believes that large corporations are trusted allies in the battle for economic liberty needs to read this book, as does every well-meaning liberal who believes that expansions of the welfare-regulatory state are done to benefit the common people.”

hmmmm. sounds like a pragmatic take on things, something we rarely hear today in the constant i’m-ok-you’re-obnoxious ‘debate’ raging in our country.

i’m hoping there’s not as much chicken-little paranoia in the book as the title implies. we’ll see.

| the ego and the id(iot) |

---

found a couple of interesting sites where you can answer a set of questions and be told what your political leanings are. confirmed where i think i am.

of course, your mileage may vary.

(and make sure you call your doctor for any erection lasting more than four hours.)

the first one is called the Political Philosophy Quiz. it comprises twenty four questions to which one answers ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘maybe/don’t care’. examples: ‘Is outsourcing of American jobs justified if it allows for cheaper goods?’ (my answer: NO); and, ‘Is it sometimes justified to wiretap US citizens without a warrant?’ (my answer: NO).

anyway, it sums all those answers up and gives a number, 1-12, on each of four categories. here’s what they said about me:

Conservative/Progressive score: 12

You are a social progressive. You generally consider yourself a humanist first. You probably think that religion and patriotism go too far in society. You probably consider yourself to be a citizen of Earth first rather than a citizen of your country.

my take: very much on target. i think scoring 12/12 is the result of my life experiences both with addiction and faith/religion.

Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 10

You’re a Social Capitalist, you think that, left to its own, Capitalism leaves a lot of people behind. You think that Health Care should be free to all, that the minimum wage should be raised, and that the government should provide jobs to all that are capable of having them. You likely hated the Bush tax cuts, and believe that the middle class has gotten poorer, and the rich have gotten richer over the past several years. The far extreme of social capitalism is socialism.

my take: i don’t really think health care should be free to all, just available and affordable to all. plus, i don’t think that the government should directly provide jobs. that the middle class has gotten poorer and the rich have gotten richer isn’t a ‘belief’, but an absolute fact. and that very point is why i think the term ’socialist’ is a well-constructed lie by the uber-capitalist crowd: to take from the poor and distribute it to the rich is as socialist as the opposite. yet the right-wing talk show hosts and their mindless multitudes cannot pause for a second to use the brains God gave them and see the obvious.

Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 4

You’re a Moderate. You think that we all have certain inalienable rights that must be protected, but that sometimes laws need to be made to protect the majority’s lives or quality of lives. You might think that the 2nd amendment isn’t necessary anymore because letting everyone a gun is extremely dangerous to the community. You might also be against illegal drug use or public pornography because of its possible harmful effects to society.

my take: very fair. if you can’t be somewhere between these extremes, you ensure that America will continue to be a pendulum swinging between the far right and the far left. and there’s no solution in that. the comment on drug use and pornography is very accurate, too.

Militarist score: 3

You’re a Pacifist. You are angered that the United States thinks it should dominate the world through its military force. You think that the only time war is necessary is when we are in direct danger of being attacked. You also believe the US spends way too much of its money on defense, as we can practically cut it in half and still easily defend ourselves, and use that money to fix all our economic problems.

my take: i don’t like the term pacifist. the qualification sentences are very pragmatic; i consider myself a pragmatist.

Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Hardcore Democrat.

not too surprising.

the next quiz, at a site called The Political Compass, is a bit more involved. it’s approach is to create a four-quadrant view of where one stands between the extremes of right/left and authoritarian/libertarian.

this is where it put me:

squarely in the middle of left/libertarian. it’s a bit more interesting to compare it to where the creators of the quiz think certain prominent figures would place:

ghandi, the dalai lama, nelson mandela – pretty accurate company, i’d say.

but where’s ian anderson?…

take a look and comment on your own score here if you care to.

and happy new year to all.

| pal-eon-tology |

---

the republican heroin

a cnn piece here included the following comment that sarah palin put out via twitter:

“Earth saw clmate chnge4 ions;will cont 2 c chnges.R duty2responsbly devlop resorces4humankind/not pollute&destroy;but cant alter naturl chng,”

memo to the people who are writing these tweets – and the newspaper columns – and the bestselling catty childish she-said-he-said books – for sarah:

it’s eon, not ion.

eon refers to a long range of time.

ion is a charged particle.

in the future, when you try to grab a few moments’ attention of the rabid righteous right-wingers – who are most likely off somewhere working on the country’s ills by protecting the bankers’ interests and denying health-care to millions – at least try to be grammatically correct.

as an aside: i first realized i was a smart kid (destined to become a smart-a$$ adult…) in 4th grade. we were given a list of words and told to identify the ones that were compound words. certainly, the ones that were supposed to be picked were words like ‘clothes-pin’, ‘fire-place’, ‘butt-head’, ‘ape-sh-t’, ‘glenn-beckisanidiot’, etc.

one of the words on the work-sheet was ‘pigeon’.

we went over our answers out loud. ms. beste, my 4th grade teacher, asked me to pick one i had checked. already even then beginning to enjoy a chance to up-set the apple-cart, i said, ‘pigeon’.

she said, ‘no, i don’t think pigeon is a compound word.’

i said something like, ‘but it actually contains two words: pig and eon.’

she indicated she’d never heard of the word eon. i told her it was ‘a long period of time, similar to what this silly compound work exercise we are doing is taking.’

(just kidding)

anyway, she got the little dictionary from her desk, looked up ‘eon’, and said, ‘you know what, mike, you’re absolutely correct. i bet that even the people who put this work-sheet together didn’t realize there are two words in pigeon.’

everyone looked at me like i was a genius.

(of course i was; they had all just been in denial up to that point.)

all the girls wanted their desks next to mine after that. and it stayed that way until seventh grade, when all the other guys started playing football, all the girls became cheerleaders, and i became chopped liver.

and, of course, my path to trc was set…