Pain's inevitable, it's the nature of our reality.
I've come to this conclusion via 62.75 years of experience in the subject as well as well as by studying the thoughts, opinions, and conclusions of others. Particularly the thoughts, opinions, and conclusions of a gentle-man by the name of Thaddeus Golas who wrote a book entitled, "Love and Pain." He may be known to some of your for being the sorta/kinda famous author of a sorta/kinda famous book that was published in 1971. It's called, "The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment."
I don't recommend either book for most people, particularly those of you that are comfortable believers or non-believers, that are content with what you believe (or don't). Most members of both groups will find them to be "out there" and dismiss some of their wilder premises early on, probably regretting have spent the money and/or time to obtain a copy.
Also, the latter book contradicts the former. Or rather, corrects it. And, if you liked the first one you might find Love and Pain to be rather depressing.
However, since Mr. G's conclusions about pain happen to coincide with (and clarified) my own, and since he expresses them so elegantly, I have to acknowledge him. As it happens...
[For the love of a higher power that can be defined any which way you like, for whom am I to judge? (my imaginary gentle reader, or IGR, has been trending politically correct as of late) would you please get on with it! Marie-Louise gives him a dirty look while simultaneously gently smacking me on the back of my head. This significance of this is that though she may agree with him her first instinct is to defend me. She's a very good muse.]
Fine then. First, I must declare a personal (respectful and low-key) rejection of the notion that we're all being punished for an original sin of some sort. A sin that was committed by persons known or unknown that's resulted in everyone born since, that is, everyone, arriving here having been tried, convicted and sentenced -- before they existed. If this works for you, well, you might as well stop reading here. Have an OK day.
Next, to get it out of the way, I'll readily stipulate that pain serves as a very effective survival mechanism. "My hand seems to have caught on fire, that really, really hurts. I should put that out as quickly as possible."
[Oh, before I forget, as to "respectful and low-key," while I'm not a believer, at least in a traditional, conservative way, I'm very much a live and let live sort of dude. It's a cage match! Believers v. non-believers v. non-traditional believers -- or my personal favorite -- traditional v. different traditional. If everyone was to make a conscious effort to redirect the time and energy we use up demonizing (pun intended) each other we could all get our laundry caught up. (Another gentle smack from Marie-Louise.) Suffice it to say that the subject of next week's column is demonization.]
Now, the specific point that Mr. Golas brings up that I'd never thought of before, at least in quite the same way, is that pain is survival. Pleasure, in more than very limited doses, is disintegration and death.
No, I'm not saying that we should resurrect the philosophy and lifestyle of ancient Sparta. Yes, I acknowledge that all work, and no play, not only produces dull dudes/dudettes, it sucks sweaty socks.
BIG BUT.
If I get drunk every day after work, and/or while at work, and if I get and stay drunk the entire weekend, because I really, really like to get drunk, I will begin to disintegrate, I will eventually die. The best I can hope for till the fun turns to cirrhosis of the liver, is that I don't trash/damage/kill anyone else along the way. Please feel free to substitute the pleasure inducing substance/activity of your choice. Don't forget sugar, sugar.
[Stuff and nonsense! Sez my IGR. You're talking about abusing substances/activities that if used in moderation...]
...No, what I'm talking about is that the nature of life on Earth, assuming, as I suspect most folks do if they wish to survive for more than a minute, is that pleasure must be limited and controlled.
[Well sure, everyone knows that moderation in all things...]
That's only true if you define moderation as doing really fun stuff in severely limited and controlled doses. If moderation is the answer why do we spend so much of our time working, be it for a living or the 1,001 other dreary things that must get done to get through the day?
Moderation? My idea of moderation would be a world in which I spend as much time having fun as I do working. That lifestyle is only available to an infinitesimal percentage of people, and for a limited time. Pain finds everyone. Even love hurts.
I hear two questions begging.
If you had the wherewithal to design reality from scratch, or could reboot it any which way you want to, wouldn't you set it up so it was possible to exist in a state of bliss 24 x 7? I'm not even remotely as forgiving as God is supposed to be and that's what I'd do.
On a more practical note, if you concede the inevitability of pain, and don't want to pleasure yourself to death (GRIN, sorry, I can't help myself sometimes) how should you structure your life and personal philosophy?
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.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Saturday, June 4, 2016
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)
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)
Saturday, May 28, 2016
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.
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.
Saturday, May 21, 2016
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.
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.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
King Crank Saves America
I don't know who will be the next president. I don't know if the Republicrats or the Depublicans or neither (I can dream can't I?) will be in control of congress come Wednesday 11.9.16. I do know two things, however. Everyone will agree as they do right now, and as they have for years, that our tax code is a bloated, complicated mess and that we need to decide what to do about our southern border problems.
I know one other thing as well. Odds are nothing will actually be done about either problem.
[Oh yeah smarty-pants, and what exactly would YOU do to fix...]
Forgive me for cutting you off imaginary gentlereader, but I know exactly what I'd do. And I will, when I become king.
First, the tax code. When I become king I will solve this with one simple decree. First, I'll abolish the current code and the IRS. This will create some unemployment in the Tax Compliance Industrial Complex sector but a king's gotta' do what a king's gotta' do, for his subjects as well as his realm. I would then reveal the exact percentage of my flat tax, a number that I would decide on based on a single, relatively brief meeting with my economic advisors after giving them a few days to fight among themselves.
There are no exemptions. Whatever you actually make will be multiplied by a given percentage, and that's what you will pay.
If, at the end of the first year of the new program (during which current programs will remain in force), if you have made less than an amount to be determined each year by my advisors and I that's determined by the state of the economy, you will get your money back, plus, a payment that will also be determined by me and my economic advisors. This lump sum will be just enough to meet certain minimal standards for getting by. You will have to budget so it lasts. If you get a raise, a better job, win the lottery, etc., in the course of the next year, good for you, it's still your money.
When you file your taxes the following year you won't be tossed off a cliff because you're doing better and hit an arbitrary number, your supplement will just be cut back accordingly. There will be a ceiling though, above which there is no more income supplementation. You'll be motivated to do as well as you can because you won't be able to live high on the hog via your supplement.
Big But...
How you spend money is up to you, but if you throw it away on recreational pharmaceuticals or ginormous televisions, that's your problem. WIC, food stamps, Section 8 housing, etc., all gone -- along with the gubmint or Gubmint employees that dole out the goodies if you kiss their butts and fill out all the right forms. You'll spend your dough, carefully, 'cause it's yours, in the free market. Nobody needs to know who's getting supplemented and who ain't. Everyone will know that no one that is will be living the high life, and will have to work just as hard as everyone else to get ahead.
The only further help available from your Gubmint will be an emergency plan that places you and yours in shelters run by a private, government-subsidized charities, or, will subsidize moving in with friends or family. If neither of these options sounds attractive, good, I'm sure you'll do all you can to get back on your feet as quickly as possible.
If you support kids you will receive a larger amount than a single person. However, your Gubmint will only help with up to two children per custodial parent. In other words, you can make all the babies you want -- if you're prepared to support them. However, you won't receive any additional money for having more kids than that. You will receive enough money to keep you and your kids fed, clothed and sheltered, but you won't get enough to live all that well. You had better give some thought to how you're going to support your kids before reproducing.
If you're born, or become, disabled, you will be taken care of, and we're going to redesign the safety net from scratch. If you're genuinely disabled (warning: subject to random verification) we will graciously provide a level of care that will be the envy of all those countries that also envy our unprecedented level of prosperity. We'll do all that we can to harness the power of the free market and the states will be encouraged to experiment to come up with what actually works without taking away people's dignity.
As to those of you that revel in your self-assigned role as a professional victim and/or those who make a living encouraging/creating such thinking -- Bonkercockie! This is America, we take care of our own, but we insist that everyone do what they can to take care of themselves, this is the price of freedom. And as your king, I would point out to those of you that don't think any of this is your problem, three things. You may be a sociopath. You may need help someday. Finally, one of these people you would ignore might someday jump out from behind a rock and gleefully cut your throat. Hunger makes people cranky.
As to our southern border, I'm going to order that Mexico be annexed to the USA. I hope our new citizens acquiesce willingly but I'm prepared to order an invasion if necessary. I know there would be casualties but who fights nicer, more politically correct wars than we do?
BAM! Just like that, most of our illegal immigrants, or undocumented aliens, or whatever we're calling them this week, turn out to just be people that were ahead of their time. Many of them for decades. Step two, round up the rest, a much more manageable task at this point, after we decide what we're going to do with them. Personally, I'd forgive anyone that did have a job and didn't have a criminal record, but I'll leave that up to the Congress. As I've mentioned in the past, I'll be a benevolent monarch. If Congress decides on mass deportations to satisfy the immigrationally righteous among us, so be it. I'm sure all of the innocent kids that will be affected by this will be fine, eventually.
Yes, I realize we also need to address our immigration policies as concerns the rest of the planet, and I'll get into that at a later date. Right now though, everyone's obsessed with the Mexican border particularly a certain follicly challenged Republicrat intent on building a magical 2,000-mile long wall that can't be tunneled under, flown over, or simply gone around via any number of routes.
While annexation is a somewhat radical step I stand by my past pledges to be a benevolent tyrant that interferes with my subjects lives and current political arrangements as little as possible. But I'm prepared to act whenever stalemates are holding us back and this is such a situation.
Rationalization: While Mexico had no shortage of problems before becoming America's dealer, it's our appetite for drugs that created and fuels this industry and has made things in the entire hemisphere dramatically worse. They've been around as long as us, right next door, but somehow managed to remain a sorta/kinda third world country anyway. Which was fine. But since our appetite for party drugs has created the cartels to supply our demand, we owe it to them to make them part of the good ol' USA. Right?
Even the eventual, inevitable legalization of weed is proving to be a lengthy, tedious and expensive undertaking and no shortage of folks still stand in opposition, so, let's annex Mexico in the meantime. Long run, we should go all the way to the Panama canal -- baby steps.
Think about it. Mexico's southern border is only 540 miles long. We can continue Prohibition, but save some money and perhaps a few lives, all without shutting down the Drug Enforcement Industrial Complex too quickly, which would be a hit to the economy.
They've got oil. They have great food. They have access to two oceans just like us. They have warm winters. Imagine the ever growing horde of American geezers and geezerettes descending on Mexico every winter; snowbirds have money or they wouldn't be snowbirds. They would help the Mexican economy catch up with the rest of New America by flooding thecountry the new states with cash. They would also serve as cultural integrators for both formerly separate countries.
The world in general, and Mexico in particular, would pitch a bitch -- at first. But think about it. Did we, as in the world, do much more than bluster when Vlad the Bully took a bite out of Ukraine? Or when he jumped-in in Syria? "Not to worry Bashar, your brother bully's got your back baby!"
Talking point: The new millennial Czar is the same as an old school Tsar. America, on the other hand, sets people free and turns them into consumers.
Win -- win, baby.
Oh, I almost forgot, the healthcare mess that the Depublicans made worse and that the Republicrats don't seem to have a clue how to fix. If you click on my Links tab you'll find a short YouTube video that explains how Singapore solved the problem and provides cheaper and better healthcare than we do.
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.
I know one other thing as well. Odds are nothing will actually be done about either problem.
[Oh yeah smarty-pants, and what exactly would YOU do to fix...]
Forgive me for cutting you off imaginary gentlereader, but I know exactly what I'd do. And I will, when I become king.
First, the tax code. When I become king I will solve this with one simple decree. First, I'll abolish the current code and the IRS. This will create some unemployment in the Tax Compliance Industrial Complex sector but a king's gotta' do what a king's gotta' do, for his subjects as well as his realm. I would then reveal the exact percentage of my flat tax, a number that I would decide on based on a single, relatively brief meeting with my economic advisors after giving them a few days to fight among themselves.
There are no exemptions. Whatever you actually make will be multiplied by a given percentage, and that's what you will pay.
If, at the end of the first year of the new program (during which current programs will remain in force), if you have made less than an amount to be determined each year by my advisors and I that's determined by the state of the economy, you will get your money back, plus, a payment that will also be determined by me and my economic advisors. This lump sum will be just enough to meet certain minimal standards for getting by. You will have to budget so it lasts. If you get a raise, a better job, win the lottery, etc., in the course of the next year, good for you, it's still your money.
When you file your taxes the following year you won't be tossed off a cliff because you're doing better and hit an arbitrary number, your supplement will just be cut back accordingly. There will be a ceiling though, above which there is no more income supplementation. You'll be motivated to do as well as you can because you won't be able to live high on the hog via your supplement.
Big But...
How you spend money is up to you, but if you throw it away on recreational pharmaceuticals or ginormous televisions, that's your problem. WIC, food stamps, Section 8 housing, etc., all gone -- along with the gubmint or Gubmint employees that dole out the goodies if you kiss their butts and fill out all the right forms. You'll spend your dough, carefully, 'cause it's yours, in the free market. Nobody needs to know who's getting supplemented and who ain't. Everyone will know that no one that is will be living the high life, and will have to work just as hard as everyone else to get ahead.
The only further help available from your Gubmint will be an emergency plan that places you and yours in shelters run by a private, government-subsidized charities, or, will subsidize moving in with friends or family. If neither of these options sounds attractive, good, I'm sure you'll do all you can to get back on your feet as quickly as possible.
If you support kids you will receive a larger amount than a single person. However, your Gubmint will only help with up to two children per custodial parent. In other words, you can make all the babies you want -- if you're prepared to support them. However, you won't receive any additional money for having more kids than that. You will receive enough money to keep you and your kids fed, clothed and sheltered, but you won't get enough to live all that well. You had better give some thought to how you're going to support your kids before reproducing.
If you're born, or become, disabled, you will be taken care of, and we're going to redesign the safety net from scratch. If you're genuinely disabled (warning: subject to random verification) we will graciously provide a level of care that will be the envy of all those countries that also envy our unprecedented level of prosperity. We'll do all that we can to harness the power of the free market and the states will be encouraged to experiment to come up with what actually works without taking away people's dignity.
As to those of you that revel in your self-assigned role as a professional victim and/or those who make a living encouraging/creating such thinking -- Bonkercockie! This is America, we take care of our own, but we insist that everyone do what they can to take care of themselves, this is the price of freedom. And as your king, I would point out to those of you that don't think any of this is your problem, three things. You may be a sociopath. You may need help someday. Finally, one of these people you would ignore might someday jump out from behind a rock and gleefully cut your throat. Hunger makes people cranky.
As to our southern border, I'm going to order that Mexico be annexed to the USA. I hope our new citizens acquiesce willingly but I'm prepared to order an invasion if necessary. I know there would be casualties but who fights nicer, more politically correct wars than we do?
BAM! Just like that, most of our illegal immigrants, or undocumented aliens, or whatever we're calling them this week, turn out to just be people that were ahead of their time. Many of them for decades. Step two, round up the rest, a much more manageable task at this point, after we decide what we're going to do with them. Personally, I'd forgive anyone that did have a job and didn't have a criminal record, but I'll leave that up to the Congress. As I've mentioned in the past, I'll be a benevolent monarch. If Congress decides on mass deportations to satisfy the immigrationally righteous among us, so be it. I'm sure all of the innocent kids that will be affected by this will be fine, eventually.
Yes, I realize we also need to address our immigration policies as concerns the rest of the planet, and I'll get into that at a later date. Right now though, everyone's obsessed with the Mexican border particularly a certain follicly challenged Republicrat intent on building a magical 2,000-mile long wall that can't be tunneled under, flown over, or simply gone around via any number of routes.
While annexation is a somewhat radical step I stand by my past pledges to be a benevolent tyrant that interferes with my subjects lives and current political arrangements as little as possible. But I'm prepared to act whenever stalemates are holding us back and this is such a situation.
Rationalization: While Mexico had no shortage of problems before becoming America's dealer, it's our appetite for drugs that created and fuels this industry and has made things in the entire hemisphere dramatically worse. They've been around as long as us, right next door, but somehow managed to remain a sorta/kinda third world country anyway. Which was fine. But since our appetite for party drugs has created the cartels to supply our demand, we owe it to them to make them part of the good ol' USA. Right?
Even the eventual, inevitable legalization of weed is proving to be a lengthy, tedious and expensive undertaking and no shortage of folks still stand in opposition, so, let's annex Mexico in the meantime. Long run, we should go all the way to the Panama canal -- baby steps.
Think about it. Mexico's southern border is only 540 miles long. We can continue Prohibition, but save some money and perhaps a few lives, all without shutting down the Drug Enforcement Industrial Complex too quickly, which would be a hit to the economy.
They've got oil. They have great food. They have access to two oceans just like us. They have warm winters. Imagine the ever growing horde of American geezers and geezerettes descending on Mexico every winter; snowbirds have money or they wouldn't be snowbirds. They would help the Mexican economy catch up with the rest of New America by flooding the
The world in general, and Mexico in particular, would pitch a bitch -- at first. But think about it. Did we, as in the world, do much more than bluster when Vlad the Bully took a bite out of Ukraine? Or when he jumped-in in Syria? "Not to worry Bashar, your brother bully's got your back baby!"
Talking point: The new millennial Czar is the same as an old school Tsar. America, on the other hand, sets people free and turns them into consumers.
Win -- win, baby.
Oh, I almost forgot, the healthcare mess that the Depublicans made worse and that the Republicrats don't seem to have a clue how to fix. If you click on my Links tab you'll find a short YouTube video that explains how Singapore solved the problem and provides cheaper and better healthcare than we do.
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.
Saturday, May 7, 2016
That's Infotainment!
Or,
Notable & Quotable, Part 2
I'm so old that when I was a young callowyute I only had access to four TV stations. My city (Pittsburgh) had two rival newspapers of consequence. One published a morning edition, the other came out in the late afternoon.
At one point in my life, I found myself working as a newspaper
Where was I... Oh, yeah, a callowyute growing up in Pittsburgh, a callowburgher. Like many of my fellow baby boomers, I was raised in front of a TV set. If you're a member of one of the three generations that have come along since I was a kid (dang I'm old) the answer to your obvious question is, yes. Yes, our parents were quite concerned that this idiot box, this talking lamp that always seemed to be on if the kids were home, was going to turn us all into, well, idiots. There's some ammunition for callowyutes to use when you're arguing with the old farts in your life about your smartphone addiction (you're welcome).
While newspapers were still quite popular, particularly among our clueless grups, those hoopleheads that thought they were cool just because they survived the Great Depression, won WW 2, and saved the world, we boomers (and many of our parents) tended to get our news from the tube. "Now your daddy's in the den shootin' up the evening news." Jackson Browne, from the song "Red Neck Friend."
The four TV channels referenced above were the local outlets of PBS, NBC, ABC, and CBS. PBS didn't begin directly competing with the three commercial networks via a nightly news format, the one I and many of my fellow boomers relied on, until 1975. By then I was going through my hippie with a job phase and preferred to get my news from Rolling Stone and "underground" news sources. You don't want to know. Suffice it to say, the PBS version of the news had little impact on my yute. The big three traditional broadcast networks, however, were a different story.
Back in the dark ages everyone that watched TV watched the local affiliate of the big three networks mentioned above. Newspapers aside, the evening news, local and national, was a cultural touchstone. When I was 10 years old, in 1963, the national news broadcasts were dramatically expanded -- from 15 minutes to 30. While there was less time back then given over to commercials, obviously this was not a lot of time. News anchors, paragons of gravitas one and all, were limited to covering what were regarded as the most important news stories of the day. If a nationally known celebrity were to drop dead or be indicted, this would dutifully be mentioned. Whom they were currently dating and/or their problems with drugs and alcohol, would not.
With the exception of the rare earth shaking event or crisis that generated a, "We interrupt this broadcast..." you might not hear any additional national news for 24 hours. There were exceptions of course. Your town might have a decent newspaper that came out the next morning. You might listen to a local radio station that provided some (usually quite limited) national news.
The news anchors referenced above professed to subscribe to mainstream journalistic ethics. In practice, this meant, among other things, that they were supposed to try and draw strict lines between fact and opinion. Though we're now told that they allowed their biases to shape the news more than we ever knew, or they acknowledged (books have been written), that's how it was supposed to work.
"Information turnover is often more important than information content." Robert Greenberg. I've taken Mr. Greenberg's quote completely out of context. He was referring to a change in philosophy by composers of classical music in the early twentieth century. I told you I was your dilettante about town. However, the moment I heard it I knew I was going to use it in reference to how the news media operates in the new millennium.
Permit me to deploy some pseudo-journalistic ethics at this point and mention that Dr. Greenberg's quote is from a Teaching Company (you should Google that name) course he put together called, "How to Listen to and Understand Great Music." Full disclosure: Lest I sound even nerdier than I am my main take away from his efforts is to now understand why I don't actually care for most classical music, particularly opera.
"Information turnover is often more important than information content."
A seemingly endless commercial break (SECB), then, CLANG! Fox News Alert: The recording artist Prince, formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince is dead at 57! Blah, blah. Another SECB. CLANG! Fox News Alert: Donald Trump just said something really ignorant in a really ignorant way! Blah, blah. Another SECB. CLANG! The Gubmint has threatened to stop giving the gubmint of North Carolina its fair share of the money they take from people that don't work for The Gubmint and who actually create value (profits) if North Carolina won't permit men who think they are women (and vice versa) to poop where they please and shower where they feel safe...
You pick up the clicker and go to CNN. You arrive in the middle of an SECB. "Welcome back, we will now continue the discussion between two party hacks, CNN contributors, whom we pay to promote the people and positions they are paid to promote by their respective political parties.
"You suck sweaty socks!"
"No, you suck sweaty socks!"
Back to 1963. Not only was the nation somehow able to get by with a half an hour of nationally broadcast national news, TV stations usually went off the air after The Tonight Show, it's current competitor or an old movie the third local station picked up on the cheap. It was standard practice to play the Star Spangled Banner while showing patriotically themed footage and then saying goodnight.
[Aside: The Tonight Show regularly featured interviews with the authors of actual books who were witty, intelligent and often controversial, thought-provoking figures. Occasionally, famous classical musicians performed. Most people took Sunday off, some of them actually read the books they heard about on the Tonight Show. Just sayin'.]
I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal (online version only) because I'm
I'll read the dead trees version every morning, the one that I might pick up again later in the day knowing that none of the content has vanished or been updated. I'll absolutely revel in the delicious delusion that I have a clue as to what's going on in the world.
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.
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Due to Technical Difficulties
I don't know what happened, but it was probably something I did.
Saturday night, 4.30.16, 11:07 p.m.
After some last minute tweaking, I clicked on the Publish button. My dashboard duly noted that my column was no longer a draft. As always, I clicked on my View Blog button to make sure the new column was actually there. It wasn't. First time this ever happened.
Mild panic ensued. I may not have a huge readership, well, not yet (GRIN), but I take this very seriously for some reason. I mean, well, technically speaking, there are 7.4 billion potential readers out there since the internet is more or less everywhere.
It would probably be tacky if I were to point out at this juncture that if you like my stuff you obviously should being trying harder to get the word out, so I won't mention it.
I have promised a new column every week, and I wouldn't want to embarrass myself, my freakishly large household, especially The Stickies (my grandkids), and of course my fellow Mehlmauers (present and former).
Anyway, the column turned up as though it had been published on 3.16.16, the date of a very rough draft.
The bottom line is I've no idea if the rough draft was published, on a Wednesday, and if either no one noticed or said anything, or what happened. It took awhile, but I found it and I fixed it.
Anyway.
I have a group of folks that check in on Saturday nights just after 11:07 EST to catch my latest column. If you happened to be one of 'em I apologize. The rumor that I had been picked by the Secret Political Correctness Task Force, and briefly detained and threatened, is not true.
Have an OK day.
P.S. Well, at least I think it's not true. See, last Thursday night, 4.28, at about 11:00 P.M., my site was accessed over 200 times, from Israel. Yes, that Israel. I've no idea by whom, or why. Betwixt that never before experienced phenomenon and my recent and unexplained difficulties, I'm a little jumpy.
P.P.S. Please scroll down to view this week's column, Notable & Quotable.
Saturday night, 4.30.16, 11:07 p.m.
After some last minute tweaking, I clicked on the Publish button. My dashboard duly noted that my column was no longer a draft. As always, I clicked on my View Blog button to make sure the new column was actually there. It wasn't. First time this ever happened.
Mild panic ensued. I may not have a huge readership, well, not yet (GRIN), but I take this very seriously for some reason. I mean, well, technically speaking, there are 7.4 billion potential readers out there since the internet is more or less everywhere.
It would probably be tacky if I were to point out at this juncture that if you like my stuff you obviously should being trying harder to get the word out, so I won't mention it.
I have promised a new column every week, and I wouldn't want to embarrass myself, my freakishly large household, especially The Stickies (my grandkids), and of course my fellow Mehlmauers (present and former).
Anyway, the column turned up as though it had been published on 3.16.16, the date of a very rough draft.
The bottom line is I've no idea if the rough draft was published, on a Wednesday, and if either no one noticed or said anything, or what happened. It took awhile, but I found it and I fixed it.
Anyway.
I have a group of folks that check in on Saturday nights just after 11:07 EST to catch my latest column. If you happened to be one of 'em I apologize. The rumor that I had been picked by the Secret Political Correctness Task Force, and briefly detained and threatened, is not true.
Have an OK day.
P.S. Well, at least I think it's not true. See, last Thursday night, 4.28, at about 11:00 P.M., my site was accessed over 200 times, from Israel. Yes, that Israel. I've no idea by whom, or why. Betwixt that never before experienced phenomenon and my recent and unexplained difficulties, I'm a little jumpy.
P.P.S. Please scroll down to view this week's column, Notable & Quotable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)