Greensboro

Tiger Woods dropped out the PGA last spring, just months before our first collapse of a major financial company. Now he's back in the league, ready to compete, and Bernanke says the recession may bottom out this year. Coincidence? Hmm, I wonder. Perhaps Woods is a weathervane for the economy, showing which way the financial winds are blowing, surfing the crests when times are good, and paddling to shore when the waters get choppy. He's grabbed his surfboard again and is paddling to the deeps to catch the next wave; did he rejoin the pack because the future looks promising? Will our economy recover this summer to create mountainous waves of cash Tiger can hang-ten off of, or will he get thrown on the rocky shores of our recession-laden economy, to be dashed to pieces? Or will he, like this lame metaphor, be fed to the lions?

Hey, if you've been auguring the blogosphere, dowsing the literature, or channeling the media channels, and you've divined some gem of truth (or pearl of wisdom, or pork-belly of the future) then come to the Green Bean tonight at 7:30 pm, and we can talk about whatever prospects the future my hold (or how many prospectors a wobbly chair can hold), and see if an open-mike tea-reading session breaks out. All prognosticators are welcome.

-William Moates
UL-listed
DL Chapter Co-Chair

Parting Thought: Do partial miracles happen?

Yesterday, I read Sharon Begley's article in Newsweek, "Why Pundits Get Things Wrong", and it reminded me of a few things. First, I am not a pandit, because I am not a Hindu scholar or priest. Second, I am not a pundit, because a) I don't consider myself an expert on any subject, and b) no one ever calls me up before an audience to give my opinion on anything. Third, that pundits come in two forms: foxes and hedgehogs. (Okay, I never knew that third part before this week, but bear with me for a moment.)

Begley explained that when you examine the accuracy of political or economic pundits, the ones who present their prognostications simply and adamantly are more likely to be wrong than the ones who pepper their forecasts with "however"s and "but"s. The forceful ones are called hedgehogs, and the cautious ones are called foxes. Hedgehogs derive much of their pronouncements from one Big Idea, sift through the information out there, then pick and choose facts which support their Idea, while belittling or ignoring evidence that contradicts it. Foxes gather information from as many sources as possible, look for patterns in the data, and draw conclusions with probabilities for each possible outcome. Basically, the foxes are scientific and the hedgehogs aren't.

In high school, I knew this guy who seemed to be full of certainty, and the way he said things bothered me. I couldn't put my finger on what bothered me at first, but finally I figured it out: he phrased his opinions as if they were facts. Specifically, this would happen when he was talking about music. Now, he would support his opinions with lots of facts, so his argument appeared convincing, but since I didn't know much about the bands he liked, or much about music, I couldn't argue with him because I didn't know the other facts that contradicted his arguments. It also bothered me I couldn't see how you could transform musical opinions into facts, present them as such, and live with the facade.

Hedgehog pundits, in addition to presenting their Big Ideas as all-encompassing, like to conflate opinion and fact, so they can bolster their arguments with "factual" opinions. When I think about all the pundits out there, I think of people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh (and Glenn Beck, somewhat) as hedgehogs. They all have their Big Ideas, which they consider The Truth, and refuse to let other facts (or people) contradict them. It's like their arguments are walking on water. Ugh.

As for cautious foxes, I can't think of any. This is because foxes aren't as entertaining as hedgehogs. People prefer simple, direct statements over complicated, hedged statements full of qualifiers and exceptions. People want you to get to the point.

And now, to the point: Drinking Liberally will be meeting Thursday evening at 7:30 pm at the Green Bean, where we can discuss an array (Hip, Hip, Array!) of topics, be they political, regional, or otherwise. New topics and new members are always welcome.

-William Moates
Chapter Co-Host

I am searching for something topical to discuss, but none of the topics "sing" to me. Where's an irate political tirade when you need one?

The Westminster Dog Show is over, and the winner is named Stump, which is a nice, unfancy (nonfanciful?) name. He was named Stump because he has stumpy legs. This shows that the owner is a regular person, because a lot of pets are named based on their appearance--like Spot. Last year's winner was named Uno, which is OK if it's because of the Chicago restaurant chain, but could be weird if it's supposed to be a fancy way of saying "The One". If I met someone who pointed at their pet and said, "He is The One", then I'd call up the nearest psych ward and ask them to send over a straitjacket. (Size 42 long, please.) Okay, I wouldn't do that--I'd just walk away. As long as the owner isn't taking orders from the dog, no commitment is necessary.

Hey, if you have something you'd like to discuss, whether it's academic or mundane, come on down to the Green Bean at 7:30 pm tonight. They sell wine, and they sell BEER, because the ABC says it's A-OK. Join me!

Parting thought: Isn't it odd how "marry" and "bury" rhyme?

Another week has gone by (as they always do), and we've got lots of things to talk about. Obama has had more problems with his political appointments--showing how hard it is to find an honest politician in Washington--and the details of the Economic Stimulus Plan have finally come to light, showing how Congress still wants to play by the old rules, despite all the public anger they saw over Bush's handling of the economic crisis. I really don't see how buying new computers for the Department of Agriculture really stimulates the economy. Apparently, when Obama said "shovel-ready", they thought he meant the plan was ready them to shovel in any old thing.

I'm interested in hearing your opinions about this, or any other relevant (or irrelevant) topic, so join me at the Green Bean tonight at 7:30 pm, barring inclement weather. (And if you'd like to know how to bar inclement weather, I'll connect you to the proper Chinese authorities.)

Parting Thought: Isn't pixie dust really pixie dander?