Rational Crank

There is this website that I have stumbled upon, that I would like to share with you all. It’s called World Clock and it’s quite extraordinary. It is a running odometer that calculates the world population (to the person) as you watch. One line continually clicks off the number of births on the planet while another, clicks off the number of people dying. It breaks the deaths down into categories: cardiovascular, cancer, traffic accidents, violence, falls… The site has other statistics on it also: the rising temperature of the earth, cars rolling off the assembly line, oil being produced… Some of the statistics change unexpectedly slowly, like the number of couples divorcing in the US. Others whiz by surprisingly quickly, like the number of computers being produced. As I describe it, you might think this site would make you crazy, watching the world, unchecked, spiral out of control, but surprisingly it has the opposite effect on me. When I think about my own personal world clock I bec

EVIL NICK - Well, President Obama’s done it. He has broken Bush’s record for number of days in his first year without a catastrophic terrorist attack. Bush said it best after receiving an August 6 th 2001 briefing entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike in the US.” The then President didn’t ask follow-up questions. He didn’t order more investigation into the threat. His only response to the aid was “Ok, you covered your ass.”   And let’s not forget the 7 minutes of inaction President Bush wasted after being told a plane hit the second tower. Ok, you’re right, you got me. The 7 minute thing is just liberal propaganda dreamed up by Michel Moore. The filmmaker got it completely wrong. According to the independent 9/11 commission it was just 5 minutes Bush sat doing nothing after he was told the United States was under attack.  Watch the You Tube split screen of those minutes.  In this nuclear age do you know how long 5 minutes are? Try sitting there now, not talking, not doing anythin

For the last couple of days I have been corresponding with someone on Facebook about healthcare. ( I promise this Post will not be about healthcare ) He would write something and I would respond. And yes, all of my responses were just as lengthy and boring as you might imagine. Yesterday, my computer alerted me that my sparring partner had struck again. Another challenge! I couldn't wait to rush home and post yet another, oh so clever retort. The strange thing is when I went to respond, my adversary’s latest post was gone, along with all his previous posts. All that were left were my responses. Standing alone they looked like the rambling of a crazy person. If you read them without seeing his stuff it seemed very much like I would write something then wander away only to return moments later to answer questions no one had asked, as though I was responding to voices in my head, only I could hear. I was arguing about Lyndon Johnson for god’s sake. But I swear he brought it up first!

EVIL NICK: God! have you seen all those conservatives screaming at town hall meetings. I have news for them. Contrary to their convoluted belief, none of the healthcare bills currently in congress say anything about “death panels euthanizing your grandparents.” Nor have they ever. These republicans are panicky little crybabies. It reminds me of that study that came out a while back that proved that conservatives act the way they do because they are less brave then liberals. GOOD NICK: I assume you are referring to the study last year published in the “Journal Science” by Kevin B Smith. It suggested a link between the positions people hold on such controversial issues as gun control, pacifism and capital punishment with their reaction to disturbing images and startling sounds. EVIL NICK: Yah, that’s the one. They measured perspiration and eye reaction and found that conservatives are three times more afraid of stuff then progressives. Damn pantywaists. Every little thing in the world

At parties, you’ve heard me say that when it comes to my world view I am a “Skeptic.” (Right now, I am addressing only the people I have gotten drunk in front of, which it turns out is more of you then I wish to admit) Some of you think I use the word Skeptic as a general adjective, as in: “I am skeptical, please refill my wine glass.” To be clear, when I say I am a Skeptic I mean, I belong to an organized group calling, themselves “Skeptics.” Yes, there is such a group. You’ll be surprised to hear there are a number of such grumpy sounding groups. They publish grumpy magazines like "The Skeptic” and “Skeptical Inquirer.” They have grumpy podcasts like “Point of Inquiry” and “The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.” They have grumpy congressional lobbing groups and they even hold grumpy conventions. They just had one this month in Las Vegas where I’m sure no one gambled because no one believed they could win. That’s all a pack of lies of cause. They are not a bunch of grumpy people.

The Michael Jackson media circus reminded me of something I thought of a while back. Remember the Anna Nicole Smith nonsense over here estate and custody of her children? Well in the wake of her death I created a formula called the Anna Nicole Smith Inverse News Quality Index (© Nick Farrantello 2009). I think it also fits for Jackson. It works like this – The amount of air time that a particular news program gives to such stories (like Anna Nicole or Jackson) is inversely equal to the quality of that particular news show's overall performance. Not just its performance in covering Anna or Jackson, its performance covering all news. If you are listening to a station that is devoting all it's time to Jackson then (when it comes to news) that station probably blows. If the station you’re listening to doesn’t give the Jackson story much air time then that station is a quality new outlet. I believe that this relationship between air time and how reliabile and accuracy a particular

Check out the current issue of Newsweek. The magazine takes on the Goddess of all quack medicine, Oprah Winfrey. Wow, Newsweek’s got balls! Celebrities get to where they are by wearing blinders. They must have the ability to ignore other people’s opinions. To succeed in Hollywood (along with a mountain of luck) you have to have persistence. Persistence entails the ability to ignore everyone who doesn’t agree with you. You must ignore critics who question your ability (that is to say the people criticizing the methodology by which you do things). You must ignore friends that might tell you it’s time to give up this acting thing and get a real job (that is not accepting results). And you must ignore odds that tell you your chances of succeeding are one in a million, (that means you must be bad at math). All those qualities that make for a successful celebrity make for a lousy scientist. A good scientist (or doctor) should listen to his or her critics. If others can show a scientist’s met