Rumors, Lies, Innuendo, Fear, Uncertainty, and Despair

Twenty percent of American drinkers consume 80 percent of the alcohol.
Washington Post

Perhaps the most cynical subterfuge in American advertising is the alcohol industry’s indifferent campaign to get us to “drink responsibly.” Intuitively, you know they’re lying but you need to do the math to see how important it is to brewers and distillers that at least some of us drink irresponsibly.

If there are 100 bottles of beer on the wall and 100 people in the room, the numbers tell us that 20 people will consume 4 bottles each (80 bottles) and 80 people will share the remaining 20 bottles, or 1/4 bottle each. This means that the average alcohol abuser (a member of the Group of Twenty) consumes sixteen times as much alcohol as a non-abuser.

Now, imagine yourself sitting in a pitch meeting at Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. Your job is to sell as much of your client’s product as possible. Who are the buyers? Well, you can try to recruit customers from among the non-abusers but that’s a hell of a lot of work for little return. If you’re smart, you go after the abusers, the alcoholics, because that’s where the money is.

How? By sending the alcoholic a subtle message that he’s earned the right to drink as much as he wants.

Consider the slogans (and the hidden message):

Head for the mountains. Go ahead, check out and get hammered. These people are assholes anyway.

For all you do, this Bud’s for you. Poor baby, you work your ass off at your job. You get home and your fucking wife starts in on you like you don’t already have enough troubles.

Where there’s life, there’s Bud. Iced tea and lemon bars? Jesus, this party sucks!

I’m only here for the beer. (This one is so cunningly complete as to defy elaboration).

It’s all about the beer. (ditto)

It’s what’s inside that truly counts.  The bitch just doesn’t understand me.

Would you say no to another? Does the Pope shit in the woods?

It doesn’t get any better than this! Does it?

Sooner or later you’ll get it. Someday all of you assholes will realize how right I am.

If I wanted water, I would have asked for water. Jesus Christ, what does a guy have to do to get a drink around here?

Smirnoff Ice. Intelligent Nightlife. I like to associate with a more erudite crowd. Godammit Bubba, you threw up on my shoes again!

Our Hand Has Never Lost Its Skill. And you should see what I can do with my other hand while I’m drinking this Schaefer.

Give him a right good Hemeling tonight. Hemeling, you bitch, not Heimlich!

Real men of genius. Just like those guys, I come up with my best ideas when I’m hammered.

The most interesting man in the world. We’re buddies. Grew up together. Taught him everything he knows.

It won’t slow you down.
Tastes great, less filling.
Everything you always wanted in a beer. And less.
Lose the carbs. Not the taste.
Beerspeak for “All the alcohol without the beer gut. Trust us.”

“The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a hungry person for a year.”
Market Watch

When I read the above, I was incredulous. What? You can feed a man for a year on the grain it takes to make 20 gallons of ethanol? Turns out it’s true. Do the math…

It takes a bushel of corn, the grain usually employed to make ethanol, to make 2.7 gallons of ethanol. A bushel of corn weighs 56 pounds, hence it takes about 416 pounds of corn to make 20 gallons of ethanol. Corn contains about 1755 nutritional calories (kcal) per pound, so 416 pounds of corn contain 730,000 calories. Divide 730,000 calories by 365 days and we find that the corn used to make one tank of ethanol would provide a man with about 2000 calories per day.

Granted, a steady diet of corn alone would not provide not be nutritionally complete. But, add a ration of Funions and Twinkies, and life could be pretty good. Or, maybe our hypothetical man could just drink the ethanol.

So, why have we built over 200 ethanol plants in the United States? Round up the usual suspects: politics and money. Ethanol is allegedly “green” so makes our politicians look like the’re doing something about energy independence and saving the planet at the same time. Farmers and agribusiness like it because it props up corn prices and profits.

Can we sustain this? Never. With the world’s growing population, we’ll eventually need the corn to feed people. Trading corn for oil is a much smarter plan.

But what would happen to all the ethanol plants? They’ll just go back to the government and ask for more subsidies so they can chase the next chimerical green energy scheme.

Termites are pretty good at converting cellulose, the stuff of tree branches and grass clippings, into sugar. How about giant termite farms, stretching to the horizon? Of course, substantial subsidies will be needed to find out that, oh well, it doesn’t work all that well either.

And, there’s the water. We live in a country where low-volume toilets are mandatory, even in regions that get 40 inches of rain a year. But it takes 22,000 gallons of water to make the corn to make 20 gallons of ethanol. (It’s your turn to do the math). Well, more actually, because additional water is used in ethanol production.

Only a politician could be oblivious to the contradictions.

Everyone knows about last month’s scandal at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, when US Secret Service agents tried to stiff—er, cheat—a hooker.

The ensuing festouche dominated the headlines throughout the summit, diverting America’s attention from the top two items on the agenda: Cuba and drugs.

The rest of the Americas wanted to talk about recognizing Cuba (something the US should have done fifty years ago) and legalization of at least some drugs (also something the US should have done fifty years ago).

Three years ago the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy published a report from ex-Presidents Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and Cesar Gaviria of Colombia. They demanded decriminalization of marijuana and treating drug use as a public-health issue. Guatemalan President Gen. Perez Molina and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos agreed, as did other Latin American leaders.

And, Latin America was united in wanting Cuba to participate. Cuba graciously declined, knowing that the US would boycott the summit. Next time, odds are the Cubans will be invited and the Americans will be told to go piss up a rope. The result will be to further isolate the US from virtually every country in the Western Hemisphere save, perhaps, Canada.

Our Panderer in Chief caught a lucky break as there was almost no press coverage of his bobbing, weaving, and back-peddling on the issues of drugs and Cuba. He should divert some of his “campaign funds” to the unlucky Secret Service agents whose careers are ended.

And, he should give the ho a stack.

First, there was Richard Reid, the “Shoe Bomber,” who attempted to blow up an American Airlines Paris/Miami flight with C4 explosives hidden in his shoes. The ever-vigilant TSA (Transportation Security Administration) responded with a “please remove your shoes” requirement. At the time, the prevailing joke was “it’s a good thing he didn’t put the bomb in his underwear.”

Enter Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “Underwear Bomber,” who attempted exactly that on a Northwest Flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Vowing never to be caught again with their pants down, TSA responded with X-ray-based devices (“Trust us, thousands of times less energy than a cell phone transmission.”). These X-ray devices usually can detect items hidden under clothing, but they are not powerful enough to see inside a body.

But now come ”body bombs,” explosives that are  inserted surgically inside the body and have no metal parts, thus avoiding detection by current screening devices. In 2009, Ibrahim al-Asiri is said to have surgically implanted a bomb inside the rectal cavity of his brother, who then attempted to assassinate the Saudi Arabian intelligence chief. The bomb exploded prematurely, killing only al-Asiri’s brother. (Or maybe the bomb didn’t explode prematurely. It was just a clever way of disposing of a shiftless relative).

TSA faces a dilemma. Even an all-too-tolerant American public is not going to put up with full-body medical-grade X-rays when they want to go visit Aunt Bernice. The only alternative is to have passengers strip so fun-loving TSA agents can look for sutures or fresh scars. Perhaps the TSA will put a nice spin on the strip-search booths by calling them “cabanas.”

Or, maybe finally the TSA will be forced to admit, “No, we really can’t protect you from a determined terrorist.”

And, “come to think of it, in the ten years we’ve been in business confiscating literally tons of nail files, knitting needles, and pocket knives we’ve never once, not once, actually foiled a terrorist attempt.”

The Huffington Post recently published an article by Tom Zeller, Jr., “For America’s Least Fortunate, the Grip of Poverty Spans Generations.” It’s a long piece worth reading. Quoting social scientists and politicians, Zeller cites the familiar litany of reasons for persistent poverty:

• Multiple teen pregnancies
• Dropping out of school
• Lack of economic mobility
• Dependent children
• Drug addiction
• Single-parent households
• Culture of poverty
• Teen pregnancy
• Inability to delay gratification
• High crime rates
• Poor health outcomes
• Competition from more highly-educated workers displaced by a poor economy
• Impoverished neighborhoods
• Born into poverty
• Lack of male role models
• Criminal records
• Failing schools
• Broken families
• Lack of jobs
• Violence
• Failure of character
• Dependence on government largesse
• Lack of work ethic

Missing from this Dickensian list is the most important factor: Low IQ.

In our politically correct, “everyone can be president (or veterinarian or pediatrician)” society, few are willing to point out that low intelligence is a major impediment to success.

Consider this: Twenty-five percent of our population have IQs that are slightly low (below 90) to very low. Another 25% have IQs that are slightly high (above 110) to very high. When we compare these two groups we find that those with the lower IQs are:

• Two and one-half times as likely to be unemployed
• Almost twice as likely to be divorced within 5 years of marriage
• Eight times as likely to have children with IQs below 80
• Nine times as likely to live in poverty
• Fourteen times as likely to be imprisoned
• Twenty-four times as likely to be chronic welfare recipients
• Two hundred and twenty-five times as likely to drop out of high school

(These data are extracted from The Bell Curve, a 1994 book by Harvard psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray. The book evoked a shitstorm of controversy when it was published. Few universities have chosen to place it on their required reading lists).

I’m as uncomfortable with these data as you are. Unfortunately, I think Ron White was right when he said, “You can’t fix stupid.”

For the past decade, so-called brick and mortar stores have been fighting a losing battle against internet sellers. The brick and mortar guys think it’s unfair that internet sellers don’t have their overhead, particularly the cost of sales people and showrooms. Sales taxes, usually not collected by internet sellers, also are an issue.

But the concept of “fair” doesn’t really apply in business. The world is what it is. Businesses thrive by turning whatever reality they face into an advantage.

The brick and mortar sellers don’t understand this. They think they are being aced out by internet sellers on price, and price alone. Granted, Americans are the most cost-conscious consumers in the world. Who else would drive 5 miles to save 3 cents a gallon on gasoline? But consumers will pay more for something if they can get it immediately, if they have a chance to try it on or try it out, or if the salesperson can provide useful information in guiding their purchase.

This last thing almost never happens as the sales people in brick and mortar stores are almost always unhappy, underpaid, and poorly informed. (Most, I think, are working there only until they find a job listing for someone who is really, really good at World of Warcraft). You can get better information from the customer reviews on Amazon than you can get from the average Best Buy ‘sales associate.’

Today, I had an instructive experience at Radio Shack. I’ve been looking for an inexpensive set of headphones for my smart phone. I wasn’t about to lay out $300 for noise-cancelling Bose or Sennheisers but I found plenty of $50-100 headphones on the internet that looked pretty good. However, I found that user reviews commented on things like fit, overall sound quality, and sound leakage (others can be bothered by the noise coming from your headphones), things that are largely subjective. I decided that buying headphones was somewhat like buying shoes or pants; better to try them out in person and get something that fits. So, off to The Shack.

Radio Shack had 5 or 6 headphone models that were in my price range. “Prithee, good sir, might I try this pair?” Sorry, I was informed, but we can’t take them out of the package (one of those goddam plastic blister packs with which Amazon has largely dispensed). “So why should I buy them here?” A pregnant pause followed by, uh, well, that’s our policy.

Fine. I’ll buy them from Amazon.

I don’t have an answer for the quandary in which brick and mortar stores find themselves. Neither, it seems, does Radio Shack.

The title of this post is lifted from a Slate article by Jacob Weisberg.

Is Newt nuts? I don’t know. I’m not a psychiatrist. Neither is Weisberg. His article is one example of literally thousands of pieces that have appeared in the past month questioning Newt Gingrich’s fitness for office, his hairstyle, his dalliances, his lobbying activities, and his right to breathe.

Why the torrent of panic- and hate-filled anti-Gingrich propaganda? Because everyone who wants Obama to win the next election yearns for Mitt Romney to be the Republican candidate. Why? Because, contrary to conventional wisdom, Romney is the one guy the Democrats know they can beat. Newt’s latest polling numbers put Romney’s nomination in jeopardy.

Until Romney has the nomination securely in hand the Democrats, the press, and the talking heads will go easy on him. But if Romney wins the nomination, you can expect broadsides against Romney along the following lines:

• Wall Street. Romney is the Republican most closely aligned with Wall Street. The Democrats will allege that Romney is linked to every scandal and scoundrel from Lehman Brothers to Bernie Madoff. Romney is a 1-percenter, a man whose life is dedicated to bleeding the working classes dry for the benefit of himself and his rich cronies. The Occupy Wall Street movement will be re-invigorated, at last having a palpable villain. (OWS already is a surrogate for the Democrats. They’re pissed at Obama. They voted for him; he didn’t bring Hope and Change, but they don’t have the balls to burn him in effigy. Romney will be the perfect target).
• Massachusetts. Voters from the other 49 states are abundantly suspicious of anyone or anything having to do with Massachusetts. This is a state where endemic political corruption has been raised to high art. It’s home to people and ideas Republicans love to hate: Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, gun control, and, of course, Romneycare. The press, with some justification, will suggest that Romney is a closet liberal. How else could he have been elected governor of the most liberal state in the country?
• Mormonism. It is an unfortunate requirement of American politics that candidates at least make a claim to adhere to some brand of Judeo-Christian doctrine. Atheists, agnostics, Sikhs, and Unitarians need not apply. Romney is a Mormon, so he meets the basic Judeo-Christian requirement. So far, the pundits have been careful to tread lightly around Mormonism. But if Romney is nominated, it suddenly will become a major topic. The Democrats know that between 20% and 36% of voters will not vote for a Mormon. If you come to an election with this many voters already against you, you’re going to lose. Long ‘analysis’ pieces will appear in the press. The following synopsis will save you the trouble of reading them. (It may even help some media hypocrites write them):

While we (The Atlantic, The New York Times, Huffington Post, etc.) believe that faith is a personal matter, some Republicans and independents harbor deep concerns about Romney’s Mormon faith. Many, like Bubba Goodfellow, a life-long member of the Open Bible Baptist Church of Syracuse KS are suspicious of this rather peculiar American form of Christianity. “Mormons believe their priests receive revelations directly from God,” says Bubba. “I mean, what happens if we have another 9/11 and Romney claims that he received a revelation that is really was the will of God?” Like most adult Mormon males, Romney is a priest.

Even more circumspect observers are skeptical. The Right Reverend Theodore Carruthers, First Rector of the Old Saybrook CT Episcopal Church notes that, “There is simply no Biblical evidence to support the Mormon claim that Jesus was in America and will return to Missouri.”

You get the idea.

Am I supporting Newt? Not really. I don’t much care who is elected president. Congress was, is, and will be the problem. Be sure to vote against the incumbent congressman in your district, regardless of his party and how helpful he was in getting your Aunt Nell her disability check. Remember, your congressman is an idiot.

Here’s yet another stupid idea from the Department of Homeland (Please Remove Your Shoes) Security: armed drones in the hands of local police departments.

DHS gave Montgomery County (north of Houston, Texas) $300,000 to buy an unmanned drone capable of firing “non-lethal” weapons, such as tasers or bean bags at fleeing desperados. Fired from an altitude of 250 feet, a bean bag would have substantial momentum, likely enough to break bones or kill someone who is struck in the head. Aiming such a device, even with the aid of a fire control system capable of accounting for windage and projectile drop, would also be a problem.

But set all that aside. How long will it be before an unmanned police drone, armed or unarmed, collides with something? A cop flying one of these things from some remote office will have very little situational awareness since he will be able to see only what his camera is pointed at. It’s just a matter of time before one of these things flies into a building or, worse still, an airplane.

Do people actually get paid to come up with these schemes?