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)

Venezuela

[Gentlereaders, you will no doubt notice this particular column is a bit shorter than average. This serves the dual purpose of demonstrating to potential syndicators/publishers that I can be less verbose if/when I need to be and will enable me to catch up on my spring cleaning.]

Venezuela, socialist paradise. Just one of the many socialist success stories slowly but steadily nudging the planet in the direction of utopia. Three relevant quotes, in chronological order, if you please.

"Joseph Stiglitz, in Caracas, Praises Venezuela's Economic Policies." (This is the headline of an article written by Kiraz Janicke for a website called venezuelanalysis.com, 10.11.2007.) "Nobel Prize winning economist and former vice-president of the World Bank, Joeseph Stiglitz...  who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001, argued that relatively high inflation isn't necessarily harmful to the economy," the article informs us.

"In 2015, Venezuela had the world's highest inflation rate with the rate surpassing 100% becoming the highest in the country's history." -Wikipedia

"Recently, a woman who works at a nearby beauty parlor decided to start her commute earlier than usual to join the line in hopes of finding milk. As per the government-mandated schedule, her turn to shop for basic goods is every Friday. She gave up on her weekly trips to the local supermarket, not only because she has to work on Fridays, but also because she is terrified of being held at gunpoint by the robbers who wait to pounce on shoppers if they emerge with anything inside their grocery bags. Her 8-month-old granddaughter hasn't had formula in months, she told me. She worries about the breast milk her mother feeds her, since she only has bread and noodle soup to eat." -- Emiliana Duarte. The quote if from an op-ed Ms. Duarte wrote for the New York Times of 5.21.16 entitled "In Venezuela, God Does Not Provide." 

Dr. Joeseph Stiglitz is not only a Nobel Prize winner, according to Wikipedia, "Stiglitz has received more than 40 honorary degrees, including from Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge Universities and been decorated by several governments... ." The article referenced above is about a visit he took to Venezuela in 2007. The author informs us that Dr. Stiglitz is a man of the left who thoroughly approved of the policies of socialist, and then  president (1999 -- 2013), Hugo Chavez, a now deceased BFF of Fidel Castro. While in town, Joe had a chance to sit down with his buddy Hugo and talk things over. 

To be fair, Dr. Stiglitz does not go around declaring himself to be a socialist, not even a "democratic" one. Personally, I think he perfectly embodies the position of the Depublicans, and their current leader the Hilliam, free market socialism, or, have your cake and eat it tooism. Dr. S. serves as an advisor to the Hilliam (Hillary and William Clinton). 

[Get rich quick idea: If baseball/football have baseball/football cards, why doesn't politics have political cards? If the content of the 24-hour news networks, as well as all the news media to a greater or lesser degree, is any indication, politics may be America's actual national pastime, at least every other year.

Proposed format: On the front of the card, of course, would be the politicians picture, name at the top. Along the bottom, a relevant blurb/slogan/quote. For example, Hugo Chavez -- Bolivarian (i.e. socialist) Revolution. 

On the back would be a micro-biography: Mr. Chavez began his political career by leading an unsuccessful coup against the folks that were running Venezuela in 1992. After getting out of jail two years later he founded a political party (the Fifth Republic Movement, fifth time's the charm?) and was elected president in 1998. In 1999, he oversaw the rewriting of Venezuela's constitution (their 26th), which guarantees free this/that/the other thing, to everyone. 

Mr. Chavez was wildly popular and reelected 3 times. Unfortunately, implementing his "Bolivarian Revolution" slowly but steadily trashed the nation. When global oil prices collapsed in 2014 (the nationalized oil industry had been paying for all the free stuff) so did the country, somewhat tainting his legacy. He died, from cancer, in 2013. "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -Margaret Thatcher 

Where was I? Oh yeah, Dr. Joe visits the big V. and it's covered by venezuelanalysis.com. You'll be relieved to know that the website in question is still up and running, unlike the country. The name makes it sound like the website of a stuffy think tank, huh? Not exactly.

Wikipedia sez that the founder sez it's, "a left social movement perspective on the Bolivarian Revolution in the English language." Others, including The Gubmint, say it's pure propaganda, and who knows more about propaganda than The Gubmint? As uncomfortable as I am agreeing with The Gubmint, I'm forced to admit I think they're right. In fact, if you check it out, I think you will also, gentlereaders.

From Ms. Duarte's article: "In 2012, when inflation and poverty had already started showing through the seams of Bolivarian socialism, Mr. Chavez made a rare public acknowledgement of his governments flaws. He said it didn't matter if there was no electricity or water, as long as we had a fatherland."

Feel the Bern.

Have an OK day.

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016


If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down. 

Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.    





   
     

Bits & Pieces

Democratic Socialism in practice: Amtrak. Amtrak is an entity that was created out of thin air by The Gubmint in 1970. Amtrak has managed to lose money, every year, without exception, ever since. The tab so far? $16,000,000,000 billion bucks. Can you guess who's paying the tab?

According to Wikipedia, Amtrak is, "...a partially government-funded American passenger railroad service. It is operated and managed as a for-profit corporation... ," -- that has never turned a profit. Who built this Frankenstein? Well...

When Amtrak was created, the privately operated passenger rail business was in the process of going the way of the buggy whip industry. Why? The overwhelming success of The Gubmint subsidized interstate highway system and aviation industry. However, in 1967, the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) was created to try and prevent this from happening. They lobbied to create the partially government-funded (i.e. subsidized) for-profit railroad that's never turned a profit, mentioned above.

They succeeded. They're a non-profit, still around by the way, and happy to take your donations. Several of the firms that make and sell stuff to Amtrak, as well as the labor unions that staff it, are proud, apparently unembarrassed members.


I love my toaster. I love bread. I love toasted bread more than untoasted bread. This is a brief book review about a book I haven't read, and never will.

The book is entitled "The Toaster Project: Or A Heroic Attempt to Build a Simple Electric Appliance From Scratch." The author, Thomas Thwaites, spent nine months and $1,837.36 to accomplish this, and failed. He wound up with a device that looks like something recovered from Hiroshima and now is on display in a traveling exhibition entitled "Aftermath: The Bomb," which, according to the author, "... kind of toasts bread."

The idea was to not only make his own toaster but also to manufacture all of its components as well, even the plastic outer shell. When I first heard about the project and the resulting book I hoped that the point was that we shouldn't take for granted the 1,001 inexpensive, "simple" devices and innovations that exist in the background of our lives. Products and services that the 1% (and everyone else) would have regarded as jaw-dropping magic not all that long ago.

Nope, I was wrong again, as I am, unfortunately, with disturbing regularity. It took about two minutes to discover that multiple detours were taken around many insurmountable walls in this quest to make a homemade toaster, which I expected. However, apparently the last 25% or so of the book, what I would call the what have you learned Dorothy? section, is an environmentalist rant attacking the various industries and processes that result in a cheap toaster.

Mr. Thwaites, no doubt, would probably be displeased to discover that I've attacked his book without having actually read it. However, I would hope that as he sits in his cozy hut, eyes streaming and lungs wheezing, toasting homemade bread made of wheat he grew himself over an open fire, that he would find it in his heart to forgive me.

Economics: As I've written before, economics is one of the many subjects that I find interesting and that I study in a dilettantish, superficial sort of way...

[Marie-Louise just whispered in my ear that I shouldn't be so hard on myself. She says that I should explain to my gentlereaders that I'm just trying to be a big picture person in an age of specialists. That I try to serve them by surfing the ocean of information we're all trying to avoid drowning in while we try to make it back to the beach. That sounds kind of pompous though, so I'm not going to bring it up.]

But a couple of professional scholars (which I guess makes them the opposite of a dilettante like myself), Anthony Randazzo and Jonathan Haidt have done a study of professional scholars that specialize in economics, that is, economists. They concluded that these social "scientists" look at the facts they collect (the studies that they did, the source of the statistics they love to quote) then interpret them based on what they think is moral and ethical. Which ain't science.

Which is why when you hear the phrase, or some version of it, "Most economists agree...", if your bonkercockie detector doesn't immediately go off you should have it recalibrated.

The Donald v. the Billary: Yes, the Billary. You get two for the price of one. As you're no doubt aware, or can easily confirm if you're not, those two have been a beast with two backs for decades. Of course, it's a matter of speculation as to whether... nevermind. I don't support either the Donald or the Billary. Let me rephrase, I don't support the Donald or the Hilliam. Hilliam just popped into my head, and it sounds funnier I think.Yes, definitely, the Hilliam it is.

My lack of support is not based on their political positions, which seem to be quite flexible anyway. It's based on what kind of people they seem to be.

The Donald. The Donald is on his third trophy wife and while it's not for me to judge, him or anyone else, I personally find that creepy. I'm a dude, dude. I get it. All men are pigs, we're wired that way. I'm also an old dude, and though I risk being tossed out the Old Dudes club for being a traitor, trust me on this. While (in most cases) the raging forest fire of passion is now a relatively easily managed, well-maintained blaze in a nice fireplace, we're as aware of attractive, young women as we were when we were young. Perhaps even more so since for most of us they are out of reach. DNA never stops trying to replicate itself.

However, that doesn't mean you have to surrender to biology just because you can. Particularly when you'll be pooping on other people's lives, like your kids for example. As I say, I try not to judge. Marriage is hard, and complicated, and private. The wife might be as anxious to flee as the husband. But then you do it again? And the third wife is 24 years younger than you, and only seven years older than your oldest son? It could be love I guess, it's still creepy.

As to the Hilliam, well, books have been written about how they somehow keep just missing being dragged off to the guillotine, so I'll limit myself to the subject of Bill the documented horndog.

Ladies, suppose you had spent years helping to cover up for a man who thought nothing of cheating on you as you both clawed your way up the political ladder (if confused google the phrase, "bimbo eruptions"). Suppose you made it all the way to the White House anyway and he got caught, once again, and this time, everyone on Earth was aware of it, along with some of the gory details.

Suppose he went on TV and looked the world in the eye, and sincerely lied his ass off. Would you not only stick with him, would you tell the world it was all just a vast right wing conspiracy? Should someone who wants power that badly even be allowed to run the PTA?

©Mark Mehlmauer 2016

If you wish to like, react, leave a comment or share -- please scroll down. 

Mobile gentlereaders, if I've pleased you, there's additional content to be found via laptop and desktop.