The Dizzinformation Age

Image by Sarah Richter from Pixabay

This weekly column consists of letters written to my perspicacious progeny — the Stickies — to advise 'em now and haunt them after I'm deleted.

Trigger Warning: This column is rated SSC-65: Sexy Seasoned Citizens   

About 

Glossary 

Featuring {Dana}: Persistent auditory hallucination and charming literary device

"Progress was alright. Only it went on too long." -James Thurber

Dear Stickies (and gentlereaders),  

I'm still in the South of France, still thinking about making a pilgrimage to the Louvre, and still recycling old columns — which was supposed to be easy but which once again has resulted in a major rewrite.

On impulse, I went rooting through old columns to discover the story behind my favorite word invention, dizzinformation. I went a-googlin' to see if it had gone viral while I wasn't paying attention. No such luck.

Dizzinformation. Perfect. It seems so obvious in retrospect. Like one of those commercials for a product someone thought up that instantly provokes a —Now why didn't I think of that?! — response.

See, I've been in search of this word for a while now, and I was stuck on disinformation, which just doesn't do it. We're told, and I agree, that this is the Information Age and that this is a RBFD (real big, um, feckin' deal). It's on par with the industrial revolution, the invention of the printing press, agriculture, that sort of thing. World-changing stuff.

[Speaking of dizzinformation/too much information I'll bet you've never heard of an interrobang, a character I've recently encountered that combines a question mark with an exclamation point‽ I immediately pictured a much younger version of myself approaching a fellow H. sapien female who self-identifies as a cisgender straight or bisexual individual and asking her if she has ever heard of... Never mind.]

The Information Age has two huge, honkin' downsides — information overload and contradictory information. 

I spent months trying to think of just the right word, or invent one, that captures that no matter how hard I try to swim to shore I never seem to be able to get out of the Dizzinformation Ocean feeling.

Wouldn't it be nice to lay on the beach for a while? Better yet, stretch out on a lounge chair of some sort, with a cupholder, sipping from a tall glass of certainty/purpose/direction?

{What's wrong with misinformation?}

Misinformation, to me at least, just means incorrect information, information that was thought to be correct but turns out not to be.  

Dizzinformation is a new study by a reputable this, that, or the other that sneaks up and taps you on the shoulder and says wait just a second there sir/ma'am/other while you're busy multitasking your bum off, i.e. just trying to get through another day in the Dizzinformation Age.

For example, you're watching the local news and they do a story about eggs; eggs may not be as bad for you as you were led to believe. 

You love eggs! You could eat eggs every day and never get tired of them! 

You go a-googlin' because you want to know just how many eggs you can safely eat on a daily/weekly basis. Answer? I'll spare you any links to follow as I'll wager you already know what will happen, you'll get every answer from none at all to feel free to eat as many Paul Newman's character did in the movie Cool Hand Luke.

 {Wait-wait-wait. What about disinformation? Or is that the same thing as misinformation?} 

As it happens, Dana, I checked into this. According to Wikipedia "Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. Misinformation can exist without specific malicious intent; disinformation is distinct in that it is deliberately deceptive and propagated." My emphasises.

I agree, but neither word comes close to describing what I'm talking about. The phrase too much information points you in the right direction but dizzinformation — dazed and confused by too much information — is perfect. 

The DSM-5-TR ("...the authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders.") defines dizzinformation syndrome as, simply, dizzy from too much information: correct, incorrect, or, worst of all, contradictory.

{No it doesn't!}

Well, it should. It's not primarily because there's so much information, there's always been a lot of it. It's because it's so easily accessible via the worldwide web of contradictory knowledge (WWCK).

{AI is going to fix that... You keep pushing this WWCK thing, what's up with that?}

I wanna go viral, just once, before I die. Dizzinformation didn't do it back in 2016, maybe WWCK will in 2024. And for the record, AI is not going to fix that. AI can punt (as it does now) and tell you that there are contradictory answers to your question, which effectively renders it useless as a search tool in my opinion.

Alternatively, it will make it possible for someone who has the kind of power China's current emperor has to return government-approved answers and many of our tech overlords will be happy to help if it adds to their bottom line (or promotes their ideology) as they do now. 

It's only been about 50 years since...

{Fifty years is a looong time.}

Almost everyone who's been walking around the block for fifty years or more will tend to disagree.  

It's taken about 50 years to go from environmentally controlled computer rooms, staffed with clipboard-carrying people in crisp, white lab coats, to the smartphone in your pocket that can access more information than you could ever possibly consume in multiple lifetimes. 

And the Dizzinformation Age 

Is still 

In its infancy. 

Poppa loves you,

Have an OK day

Scroll down to share my work or to access previous columns.   

Comments? I post links to my columns (and other stuff) on Facebook so that you can love me, hate me, call to have me canceled or to have me publicly flogged. 

Abortion and Minority Rule

 Greetings and Salutations From France! 

Image by Thomas Staub from Pixabay

This weekly column consists of letters written to my perspicacious progeny — the Stickies — to advise 'em now and haunt them after I'm deleted.

Trigger Warning: This column is rated SSC-65: Sexy Seasoned Citizens   

About 

Glossary 

Featuring {Dana}: Persistent auditory hallucination and charming literary device

"There are no solutions, only trade-offs." -Dr. Thomas Sowell

Dear Stickies (and gentlereaders),  

Yes, I'm still here, In France I mean. Please see the intro to this column if you're unaware as to the how/why I'm spending the month of May here. 

Collette and I are thinking about overnighting in Paris next week because I'd really like to visit the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa (among other things) but she's trying to talk me out of it; I guess it can get a bit crowded. I'll let you know if we went and how it went. 

Turns out you can arrange early morning private tours before the museum opens. I went a-googlin' and discovered this service is provided by a bunch of privately owned firms and that all sorts of options are available.

The average price is about $250 per adult. A bit pricy but that's for 2-3 hours, and it includes admission.

{A bit pricey?}  

Have you ever been to one of the Disney theme parks, Dana? Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

I have the pallet of an American little boy... Well, an American little boy born in the 1950s, the Stickies are now all at least 18 and eat all sorts of sophisticated stuff that my parents, and most of their contemporaries, had never even heard of. 

I'll wager there's no shortage of my fellow American old cranks who fear traveling to Europe for fear of the food. 

However, I had heard that McDonald's can be found everywhere in Europe. I verified this before I left and it turns out France has the most. Who would've guessed? No wonder they love Americans so much.

“Lafayette, we are here!” -Colonel Charles Stanton (not General Pershing).

{I heard they serve breaded deep-fried snail tenders...but what's any of this got to do with abortion, and/or minority rule?}

Nothing really, Dana, this is me avoiding the subject by doing what I'm famous for, entertaining my hordes of readers via the wit and wisdom of a garrulous geezer. 

I have only one thing in common with the late, great Isac Asimov, I often think with my fingers. Sometimes, often actually, I have to wait for my muse to reveal what I should write. You'll no doubt be relieved to know I've figured it out.  

 

As I explained in my first summer rerun column, I thought I could republish some old columns with minimal editing while on vacation but my writing style, some quoted statistics, and some of my opinions have shifted anywhere from a little to a lot.

That column required massive rewriting, but this week's column was supposed to be a piece of croissant. The first time I wrote about abortion, in 2015, I came down decisively on neither side of this never-ending debate. I still feel the same way. 

How about a compromise wherein neither side gets what they want? Permit me to sum up my position and move on to what's really bothering me. 

{We can't wait!}

What if abortion was banned, everywhere, with or without common sense exceptions (incest, rape, or likely death of the woman involved immediately spring to mind), would there be no more abortions? 

Obviously not. A rich and well-connected woman would still be able to get one in relative comfort and safety. Anyone else who thought they had a compelling reason to seek an abortion would be forced to take the "back alley" route and no shortage of women would be killed or physically/emotionally damaged. 

So what if there were no restrictions? It's a free country, it's your body, do what you want! 

I'm not going to go looking for statistics as I can confidently state two things. First, nearly all of even the most radical pro-choice advocates are revolted by the idea of aborting a viable baby no matter what they say. 

Second, there's a tiny minority that are comfortable with absolutely no restrictions right up to and including infanticide and if you don't understand why they should be denied this right I have nothing to say to you that's going to make a difference. 

I have kept an eye on the relevant polling before and since I first wrote about abortion and the results have been consistent. 

Gallup, 7 July 2023 (that's how we say the date on the Continent):

"When asked about the legality of abortion at different stages of pregnancy, about two-thirds of Americans say it should be legal in the first trimester (69%)...the majority oppose laws that would “ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected [about 6 weeks]...63% favor allowing the abortion pill mifepristone to be available in the U.S. as a prescription drug." (My emphasises.) 

So what's the problem? This is a democratic republic so I'm sure Congress will write some sort of clearly worded law to put an end to this, compromise on the details, and tell the extremists on both sides to go pound sand so we can concentrate on worrying about AI and robots destroying everyone's job. 

{Sarcasm isn't always appropriate.}

Wait, I've got an idea! What if we relitigate the issue? Maybe the Supremes will decide that since there's nothing in the Constitution to base a decision on, the individual states should decide?      

{More sarcasm? Seriously dude? About such an important issue? I suppose now we're going to be subjected to what's "really" bothering you.}

You betcha. 

The Founding Pasty Patriarchs were well aware of an ever-looming danger of democracy, a tyranny of the majority. That is to say, what if 51% of us agree that killing the other 49% of us would be best for all involved.

{That's a goofy, vast oversimplification of the subject!"}

"Hyperbole in the defense of a valid point is no vice!" -me  

Anyway, Socrates, murdered by his fellow citizens in the city often credited with inventing and implementing a democratic system of government might disagree. 

America is a democratic republic. The Founding Pasty Patriarchs, aware of the potential downsides of democracy, set up a system in which we choose which weasels we want to represent us in the Swamp so that we can devote our time and energy to important things like making a living, and making and trading Taylor Swift friendship bracelets. 

Unfortunately, they had no way of knowing how effectively relatively tiny minorities would eventually be able to easily mess with majorities thanks to the onset of the Dizzinromation Age and the rapid subsequent spread of the WWCK (worldwide web of contradictory knowledge). 

We're at the mercy of motivated minorities cheered on by a rabid media that actively/deliberately promotes controversy to keep the money flowing.

No form of democracy can survive without rational compromise. 

     

Poppa loves you,

Have an OK day

Scroll down if you wish to share my work or access my golden oldies.   

I post links to my columns (and other stuff) on Facebook so that you can love me, hate me, or lobby to have me publicly flogged.  

May You Live In Interesting Times (No. 6)

If you're new here, this is a weekly column consisting of letters written to my (eventual) grandchildren (who exist) and my great-grandchildren (who don't yet, aka the Stickies) to haunt them after they become grups and/or I'm dead.

[Blogaramians: Blogarama renders the links in my columns useless. Please click on View Original to solve this problem and access lotsa columns.]

                                                 - Glossary  

                                  - Who The Hell Is This Guy?

Irregularly Appearing Imaginary Guest Stars 

Marie-Louise -- My beautiful muse  

Iggy -- My imaginary Sticky

Dana -- My imaginary Gentlereader

"We have met the Devil of Information Overload and his impish underlings, the computer virus, the busy signal, the dead link, and the PowerPoint presentation."   -James Gleick


Dear (eventual) Grandstickies & Great-Grandstickies (& Gentlereaders),

As you are no doubt aware from your careful and thorough reading of my missives the ancient Chinese curse that is also the title of this column is not actually an ancient Chinese curse.

However, these are indeed interesting times if you regard treading water in the Dizzinformation Ocean with no sign of solid ground in sight as interesting.

"Dizzinformation Syndrome: I define dizzinformation syndrome as, simply, dizzy from too much information -- correct, incorrect, or, worst of all, contradictory." -from my Glossary


Economists speak of the potential problems caused by asymmetric information. For example, in the BC era (before Carfax) when purchasing a used car a buyer was at a huge disadvantage when trying to strike a deal with a seller. 

The buyer is still at a distinct disadvantage; there are all sorts of things that might be wrong with a given car that will only be discovered after you've become the proud owner. There are no shortage of tricks and/or deceptions that can be employed by the seller to make sure you don't discover these things until after your name is on the title.  

Alternatively, the buyer in a given transaction may have an informational advantage. Suppose your beloved uncle Stanislaus died and left you his dumpy home that's located in the wrong neighborhood, but, is jam-packed with all sorts of crap stuff because uncle Stan was a collector of sorts. 

He wasn't a packrat, he only saved things he thought were either interesting, might be valuable, or both. But there's an awful lot of it and categorically speaking, it's widely varied. Of course, you could go a-googlin'... and do so much research it feels like your brain is bleeding. Then all you'd have to do is figure out the best way to sell what you think might be valuable. 

What else have you got to do, right?

[Awc'mon! what's the big deal? There are people you can hire to do that for you, I don't see what the big deal is.]

That's true, Dana. Once again all you have to do is go a-googlin' and find one. Alternatively, you can find all sorts of information about how to go about disposing of your (or uncle Stan's) crap stuff by yourself. In either case, hundreds and hundreds of relevant hits will pop up. And of course, everyone knows you can trust the Goog to impartially provide you with objective information, right?  

Ain'tcha glad you're living in the Information Age?

[Is there a point to...] 

Absabalutely. 

Too many sources of information are just as bad as too many products to choose from unless of course, they aren't. 

[Right!... No, wait, that doesn't make any sense. What...]

Unfortunately, it does. Fire up your screen of choice and go a-googlin' again. Experts in multiple fields agree that having a multiplicity of choices, in anything, clearly sucks. Other experts in multiple fields agree that having a multiplicity of choices, in anything, clearly, is cool. The experts who study this subject in order to advise marketing experts on how to sell us crap stuff come down firmly on both sides.


Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotta go. I've been considering buying a guitar. Being a newbie of limited means I obviously don't want to spend a lot of dough on something that may just turn out to be a passing impulse.

I've done my research and have my choice narrowed down to about 39 different models and I'm cautiously optimistic that in another week, two at the most, I will have selected the right guitar.

Worst-case scenario I'll put together a top ten list and resolve the question via a series of coin flips while praying to the patron saint of crap stuff (St. Accumulatious) that I'm not subsequently afflicted with a severe case of buyer's remorse. Poppa loves you.

Have an OK day. 
Please scroll down to react, comment, or share.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains. Just click on the Patreon button at the top or bottom of the page.

Your friendly neighborhood crank is not crazy about social media (I am a crank after all) but if you must, you can like me/follow me on Facebook. I post an announcement when I have a new column available as well as news articles/opinion pieces that reflect where I'm coming from or that I wish to call attention to.

©2019 Mark Mehlmauer As long as you agree to supply my name and URL and only minimally edit my content (scroll all the way up or down for Creative Commons License) you may republish this anywhere you please.

The Dizzinformation Age

Dizzinformation. Perfect. It seems so obvious in retrospect. Like one of those commercials for a product someone thought up that instantly provokes a now why didn't I think of that? response.

See, I've been in search of this word for a while now, and I was stuck on disinformation, which just doesn't do it. We're told, and I agree, that this is the Information Age and that this is an RBFD (real big, um, freakin' deal). It's on par with the industrial revolution, the invention of the printing press, agriculture, that sort of thing. World-changing stuff.

As I've written before, the Information Age has a huge, honking downside -- information overload. So, for a couple of weeks now I've been trying to think of a word, or if necessary invent one, that captures that no matter how hard I try to swim to shore I never seem to be able to get out of the Information Ocean feeling.

Wouldn't it be nice to lay on the beach for awhile? Better yet, stretch out on a lounge chair of some sort, with a cupholder, sipping from a tall glass of certainty/purpose/direction.

Dizzinformation. See, disinformation doesn't work because to me at least, it means incorrect information, sometimes, no, often, deliberately incorrect and designed to deliberately confuse/manipulate/deceive. Also, information that was thought to be correct but turns out not to be, such as the fact that we will not necessarily die next week if we eat some eggs this week. Well, at least not until the results of a major/minor study by a reputable this, that, or the other sneaks up and taps us on the shoulder while we're multitasking our butts off.

I define dizzinformation syndrome as, simply, dizzy from too much information -- correct, incorrect, or, worst of all, contradictory. It's not primarily because there's so much of it, there's always been a lot of it. It's because it's so easily accessible, and because installing effective filters is hard.

Information (and entertainment) access is well on it's way to becoming ubiquitous. It's only taken about 30 years or so to go from access and environmentally controlled computer rooms, staffed with people in white jackets, to the smartphone in your pocket that can access more information than you could ever possibly consume in multiple lifetimes. And the Dizzinformation Age is still in its infancy.

There are two sorts of information filters, self-installed ones and those installed by someone else.

[Aside: As to those installed by someone else, I'm not talking the security of allegedly/hopefully secure networks that are under constant attack by black hat geeklings whose motivations range from ideological to pathological. The only thing I have to say about that subject is that I believe property rights are fundamental if you prefer living in a modern, prosperous, civilized society. Without them, there wouldn't be any computer networks to attack while sitting in a comfortable chair.

Without property rights, the black hat geeklings -- the idealists, terrorists, or something inbetweenists -- would have to get out of their chairs and go break into a given facility and either steal as many scrolls as they could carry or set the place on fire. Is there a torchesandpitchforks.com? Regardless, here's hoping they don't come after me.]

Now, self-installed filters, if you believe in personal liberty, are clearly to be preferred over those installed by others. But there are, often difficult, choices to be made. If you're not a believer in personal liberty, or a bully, or a bully's victim (willingly/passively/genuinely, e.g., Putin's Russia), your choices range from limited to non-existent.

Personally, I think the latter scenario sucks sweaty socks, but it does simplify things.

On the other hand, life for those of us who prefer, and/or are fortunate enough to enjoy, personal liberty, choosing a personal filter is made all the more complicated by the diminished power of the external ones installed by someone else.

I refer here to the externally installed filters of consensus and convention, many of which our culture has discarded, or at least dramatically weakened. In the about me box on the homepage of my website, I make reference to the Great Fragmentation. I've never directly defined the term or written a specific column about the subject but it's a theme easily discernible throughout my work. We have become, obviously and remarkably quickly, a culture of people that have split into wildly different, and often hostile, factions.

[Wait a minute! (my designated gentlereader interrupts) this is America, we disagree about everything! It's the nature of the beast.]

Yup. But a minute ago we were all, at the very least pretending to agree, that a child born out of wedlock, fornication, porn, sex workers, anything LGBTIQ, abortion, masturbation, profanity, smoking weed, atheism, agnosticism -- deep breath -- and no shortage of other things were generally unacceptable. And, that callowyutes should be instructed accordingly. And, that to spank your child, when appropriate, was to do them a favor. And...

[Wait a minute!...]

Shush. I'm not positing approval/disapproval, I'm merely pointing out that we no longer have such a consensus, and that we've not replaced it with a new one.

TI + CR + (BS x PC) = ?

The too much information age +

A communications revolution (Is that a cell phone in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?) +

(A hyperventilating, ratings and profit-hungry, us v. them, news/media/infotainment business x PC)

= (Welcome to) the Dizzinformation Age.

Have an OK day.
Please scroll down to react, comment, or share.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains. Just click on the Patreon button at the top or bottom of the page.

Your friendly neighborhood crank is not crazy about social media (I am a crank after all) but if you must, you can like me/follow me on Facebook. I post an announcement when I have a new column available as well as news articles/opinion pieces that reflect where I'm coming from or that I wish to call attention to.

©2017 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

Just the Facts -or- Ohio and Weed

"Just the facts, Ma'am." The Information Age is clearly upon us. Never have so many had such easy access to so much information. Now that so many of us have ready access to the cold, hard facts of a given matter we are much more likely to form our opinions and policies, in the public as well as well as private spheres, from documented reality and not our personal prejudices and sticky, convoluted emotions.

The paragraph above is 99.9% unadulterated bonkercockie.

The Information Age is wonderful for weirdos like me. I'm thinking of starting a narrowly focused support group for dilettantes and current events junkies that have no interest in celebrity journalism. Keep an eye out for our micro-niche website.

Also, the internet can be a Godsend to anyone in need of the cold, hard facts necessary to deal with cold, hard objects or processes. For example, recalcitrant lawnmowers, or, how to make sunny side up eggs without breaking the yolks long before the dipping toast is ready, and the yolks turn into cold, hard objects.

However...

The inexhaustible high-pressure firehose of information available in real time often as not leaves us on our butts, gasping for air. If highly respected, highly educated economists, after 20 years or more of formal education can draw radically different conclusions as to what works best for the most, how are we mere mortals to decide?

If I want to purchase a particular product through Amazon and the reviews of previous purchasers are wildly contradictory, what should I do? My second example is even more complicated than it seems because I've strolled around the block often enough to know that something even most folks seem to agree on may lead me to conclude most folks are nuts.


This brings us to Weed and the Buckeye State. The good citizens of Ohio will shortly be voting on whether or not to end the prohibition of Cannabis. Sort of.

When the USA passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of alcohol for consciousness altering purposes that occasionally lead to unconsciousness, it caused such a chaotic kerfuffle (somebody stop me) that it led to a capitalization. It wasn't an era of prohibition, it was the Prohibition Era. Ken Burns thought it worth a documentary.

Cannabis prohibition does and will continue to merit the attention of scholars, the media, The Gubmint etc, but it's not been Prohibition II.

 Mainstream Americans were not suddenly deprived of a socially acceptable (within limits) practice. White collar types have never been (in)famous for three joint lunches, (most) blue collar types for a quick joint and a beer after work before heading home for dinner with Marge and the kids. Dad must've worked hard today, look at him eat!

Though cannabis prohibition has needlessly trashed no shortage of our fellow citizens lives the worst damage has occurred south of the border, courtesy of those zany drug cartels that get so much press.

That's why cannabis prohibition has remained the law of the land for roughly a century in spite of the inherent difficulties involved in trying to stop folks from growing, selling and/or smoking a weed. But this is the Information Age, and having easy access to all that information enables us to repeal or amend goofy laws and get on with our lives -- after jacking everything up.

Several of the states have either effectively legalized weed or are working on it. The federal law that prohibits this remains in place. When it comes to laws The Gubmint (the Feds) trumps the gubmint (state and local). The folks currently in charge of The Gubmint are too busy screwing  up foreign policy and working hard to make sure we have a slow growth, politically correct economy to care about weed. But what if the next administration has different priorities?

In Ohio, ten groups of crony capitalists put up money to pay for a petition drive and bought themselves a motion that will appear on the ballot next month. The motion proposes that the state legalizes weed and helpfully supplies a slate of Rules&Regs for legal weed -- to be added to the state's constitution.

These Rules&Regs give the ten groups the exclusive right to grow the weed that will eventually be purchased by Ohio consumers. They're now paying for commercials to promote its passage. The commercials reassure the folks that a monopoly will not be created, that the ten authorized growers will compete with each other -- honest, we swear -- so that consumers will get the best possible prices.

They're technically correct. What they're proposing is a cartel, not a monopoly. Well, why not? We've certainly been well served by the world's most well-known cartel, OPEC.

The motion, if passed, will enshrine the right of these guys to be the only ones in Ohio to legally grow weed to sell, in the Ohio constitution. Citizens will be permitted to cultivate their own plants and maintain a stash as long as they don't exceed explicitly specified quantities -- and if they buy a $50 permit so the gubmint can keep an eye on them. The cronies will permit you to grow your own as long as you're not trying to compete with their non-monopoly.

The Ohio legislature, no doubt miffed that a group of would-be oligopolists is trying to have their oligopoly embedded the state's constitution, could've just passed a law that said weed is legal for everyone over 21, if you sell it you have to pay sales tax, and we're going to let the free market figure out the details. We can always step in later if the market messes it up.

Instead, they've placed their own measure on the ballot. This one forbids building a business monopoly into Ohio's constitution. Sounds good. Also, it gets them out of having to vote yes or no on weed. Unfortunately, it allows for placing motions on the ballot that would let voters decide that a given monopoly can become part of the constitution. Huh?

It gets worse. Both motions could pass. One that sets up a monopoly, and one that says you can't do that in Ohio -- except for when you can. Let the litigation begin!

But thanks to the fact we're living in the Information Age you now know what's up and it all makes perfect sense, right?

Have an OK day.


[P.S. Gentlereaders, for 25¢ a week, no, seriously, for 25¢ a week you can become a Patron of this weekly column and help to prevent an old crank from running the streets at night in search of cheap thrills and ill-gotten gains.

If there are some readers out there that think my shtuff is worth a buck or three a month, color me honored, and grateful. Regardless, if you like it, could you please share it? There are buttons at the end of every column.]


©2015 Mark Mehlmauer   (The Flyoverland Crank)

If you're reading this on my website (where there are tons of older columns, a glossary, and other goodies) and if you wish to react (way cooler than liking) -- please scroll