The Horka Blog

Lately I have been struck by outlandish headlines on web news sites such as CNN. The statements are so outlandish that I check to see who made the statement. Almost inevitably it is a nobody. By that I mean, not a common noted authority on the subject in question. That should not exclude the writer automatically, but similarly just because an article is printed does not automatically mean it has any credibility whatsoever.

It is used to be that newspaper editors tried to ensure that when articles where published, the authors had at least some claim to credibility. I don’t see anyone checking the credibility of any pronouncement these days. Want proof? Remember that article about how people who used Internet Explorer had lower IQs than those using other browsers? Many news outlets reported that story, even though the facts in the story itself should have given any reasonable person pause to question its veracity. Of course the story was a hoax. But what was even more shocking was the blind distribution of the story with absolutely no attempt to check the facts.

Where did the story originate, who were the authors?  What methodology did they employ?  Who did they survey?  Where were the results for others to review? Why were the IQ values cited in the story just plain nuts?

I think people used to trust editors to do a lot of vetting of stories before they were printed. Sure, publishers always had certain political and social leanings. But when you read a newspaper for a while, you would understand what those were. Similarly today FOX news is a right wing outfit, everyone knows that, and the message is twisted accordingly. Other news outlets are more left leaning. But even checking basic facts and figures seems to have gone out the window.

So it’s up to the consumer to apply discretion when reading news articles. If the story is about politics, is the author a politician, does the politician have recognized expertise in the area being discussed?  Is the story by an academic, are there other articles this person has written? Do they reflect knowledge and sound analysis?  What do critics think of this person, how much credibility does he/she have? Generally, I don’t expect profound analysis of international relations from local politicians whose primary emphasis in municipal or provincial or state issues. I don’t look to actors to provide me with a good understanding of what is happening economically. I don’t look to Sarah Palin to have the remotest notion of  world politics. I question most articles written by academics, unless they have served equal time in the real world. There is definitely something lost when a person only understands the world through book learning – or others’ views on real world experiences. I question financial commentary from corporate spokespersons. I look for people who have a track record of trying to assemble and present information in a logical way. No one is “objective”, everyone has preferences. That’s fine. But I prefer to know what they are so that I can take that into account when I read news stores. I know where Glen Beck is coming from and sometimes I find him amusing in a twisted kind of way.  And when I hear that someone says America’s ailments could be better addressed if Obama just prayed more, then I get downright scared that the separation between church and state in the US is just a sham and now we have to worry about religious nut jobs there getting hold of nuclear weapons.

Which gets us back to outrageous headlines. Since most news outlets will not check the accuracy of any news story, their prime criteria for publication is simply to print whatever is outrageous enough that people will read it. So reader beware. Always check who wrote the story, get the scoop on that person and then ask the question – is this person likely to be good reliable source of information on whatever the topic is.

There was an article in the press today about a 12 year old Yemeni girl who died of internal bleeding resulting from intercourse with her husband!!

The article went on to say there were efforts in Yemen to institute a minimum age for marriage, but these efforts were being resisted by “conservative parliamentarians”!!!

Hello?

Conservative Parliamentarians?

Call a spade a spade. The efforts to eliminate this practice are being resisted by pedophiles in government. Much like abusive clergy – they find protection in an institution that does nothing to prevent their pedophile tendencies. Of course they resist! Take away their right to have sex with 12 year old girls?

On what planet does the press label this disgusting, totally abusive behaviour, “conservative parliamentarianism”

Call a spade a spade – pedophiles in the Yemeni government don’t want their favourite perversion taken away.

Larger picture – what are other nations doing to sanction any country that institutionalizes pedophilia?
(Similarly, what are nations doing to sanction any organized religion that does not report this type of behaviour to the appropriate authorities for immediate handling through the police/court system?)

There seems to be a predilection in the press to talk about Sr. Mgmt salaries as in some way linked to the job title. I never see a discussion of these salaries in terms of the actual contributions of the people occupying the positions and the value added they provide to the corporations they work for.

I think it is time to evaluate the salaries paid to Sr. Managers in the same terms as they are evaluated for everyone else in the organization – what value does the individual add to the corporation?

After spending many decades in large corporations, I must say that it is extremely rare that I see a Sr. Manager contributing to the corporation at anywhere near the scale that would be necessary to justify their salary.

Like more normal humans they come in, have a coffee or breakfast, read news and reports, talk to subordinates, attend meetings, submit plans produced in most part by their subordinates, etc. In other words, it is not that most of them do nothing, but I have to scratch my head when it comes to pointing out which unique decisions or choices they make which materially improve the financial well being of the organization, justify their outrageous salaries, and differentiate them from much less paid subordinates. In most cases they could disappear entirely and no one would ever notice – because the bulk of the work is being performed by their underlings.

When new and innovative decisions are made – it is not as if these are new and innovative in the context of the organization. Inevitably these are ideas that have been floating around for years, but no one has had the political backing or force of personality to make the changes.

Yet, once a person enters the Sr Manager inner circle and has acquired the appropriate title – this in itself seems to provide entry to those same ranks in other corporations – irrespective of the individuals’ actual performance or contribution. To get into the inner circle requires a mentor or some form of support from within the inner circle. So, to a large extent, the inner circle is a self-perpetuating group of mediocre individuals, in large part, who have essentially “lucked out” in entering the inner circle, and have a vested interest in ensuring the group’s survival and prervailing mediocre performance. Hiring truly brilliant people with clear track records of performance and contribution would, of course, highlight their own mediocrity.

So, next time the press talks about Chief Whatever Officer salaries, they should take a moment to reflect and evaluate the person’s track record at previous institutions, and what true value these people have contributed.

I am sick and tired listening to the endless debates on whether the US can “win” in Iraq or Afghanistan, or whatever the conflict du jour might be. I listen to the blather of incompetents, waiting for the moment when at least one person will ask “and what does “winning” mean to you”, but it never comes.

You would think that it would be obvious to any reasonably intelligent person that you cannot even start this type of debate if you do not have agreement on what “winning” really means.

I have heard people talking in terms of decreasing the number of pot shots taken at allied soldiers (possible) or eliminating such attacks completely (impossible). Holding elections for government officials pops up frequently as a key ingredient in “winning” – although there is a monumental gap in doing so with a significant foreign military presence (possible) and doing so willingly (impossible). Many debates relate “winning” to the reduction or eradication of religious, cultural and/or economic differences (nope, not in our lifetimes). Some relate “winning” to political alignment to the west rather than to islamic countries (dream on). Some even relate winning to whether the supply of oil to the West will proceed unfettered or not (might happen as long as there is a strong military presence). Or, some relate “winning” to the creation of a secular government not directed by someone’s favourite invisible friend (you’re kidding, right?)

These are just some of the different definitions of winning I have heard, and they are very different from each other – although there are significant interactions among these different scenarios.

So please, somebody, define what you mean by “winning” before you lanuch into a useless debate!

Since Britain’s current monarchy can be best characterized as inbred imbeciles, I suggest we go for the real thing and have Britain represented in Canada by the toothless banjo-picking blind boy from Deliverance. At least he had talent and was certainly far better looking.

Any similarities with other Deliverance characters and/or events can be inferred at your leisure.