... differences that make a difference ...
|
| Network |
|
Chanticleer Calls - February 2, 2000
![]()
IN THIS ISSUE:
GROUND HOG DAY, and Other misLeading Indicators
Yes, I'm sure you're aware that today is yet another "Groundhog Day". In an unexpected, pleasant surprise, I scoured today's Dallas Morning News and found nary a mention. However, the various TV outlets could not exercise such discretion. Once again, we got to see the good, yet exceedingly silly-appearing, citizens of Punxsutawney, PA, carry on this "popular 114-year American tradition". According to one source, the 'event' traces roots back to at least 17th century Germany.
Ah, there's nothing quite so queerly quaint as the continued celebration of ancient animal-based folklore. Unless, of course, we consider the media attention paid to it.
Now, I want to know what's going to happen in the future as much as anybody. I prize predictability. But it seems to me we need to exercise some differentiating discretion in terms of which 'leading indicators' we choose to base our conclusions upon.
Of course, everybody knows that Punxsutawney Phil doesn't have a degree in meteorology, and probably (I'm assuming here) doesn't have so much as a thermometer, barometer or Ouija board down in his hole. So this is simply some innocent Chamber of Commerce boosterism on the part of an otherwise nondescript town with an unpronounceable name.
But yet I wonder.
I wonder how many people hear the news:
Even though we all 'know' this is just a myth, a legend, a folk tale - we still react to the 'news' as if it's credible! Incredible.
I attribute this kind of "reacting-to-what-should-be-ignored" phenomenon to the psycho-linguistic equivalent of Chinese water torture. That is, individual 'drops' of nonsense, by themselves, have no impact. However, with repeated 'droppings' over time, the cumulative impact wears down our senses and better judgment until we eventual start reacting - however innocently or briefly - to the nonsense as if it were 'fact'.
I submit we need to pay close attention when someone (usually with nothing better to do) comes up with some arcane, yet interesting, correlation of circumstance, coincidence and outcome.
For example, several years ago (perhaps in the late '70s or early '80s) Robert Stovall, a guest on Louis Rukeyser's "Wall $treet Week" television show, revealed his "Super Bowl indicator". His research revealed the interesting tidbit that if a team from the original National Football League (before the merger with the American Football League) won the Super Bowl, the stock market had a good year. If a team from the old AFL won the game, the market didn't have a good year.
Now that's an interesting correlation. But before you put much, uh, "stock", in it as economic theory, I think it's appropriate to ask a question:
While we're on the subject of senseless silliness (at least while I'm on it, I have no idea where, or what, you are or might be on), let's talk about superstitions, those spiritual siblings of misleading indicators.
Whereas the misleading indicator is supposed to merely predict or foreshadow the outcome, the superstitious action actually causes the outcome.
That, in my estimation, amounts to a significant difference.
Think about it ...
Here in 2000, isn't it time to stop the dripping?
THE ULTIMATE "OOPS, I DIDN'T MEAN TO DO THAT!"
A "major deal" with British Telecom and AT&T also is in the works, according to the email, which was inadvertently sent to a CNET editor late today.
To quote Dick Enberg: "Oh, my!"
May unintended addressees never appear in your emails.
Knock on wood!
ROCKER UPDATE
John Rocker, Atlanta Braves relief pitcher whom I mentioned last issue, received his punishment this week from Bud Selig, Commissar of Baseball. (I mean, Commissioner.) Selig's statement reportedly said:
Eugene Orza, associate general counsel of the players association, responded: "It's virtually unimaginable that we would not file a grievance" on Rocker's behalf.
You may or may not recall that when the Baltimore Orioles's Roberto Alomar spat on umpire John Hirschbeck during a game at the conclusion of the 1996 season, he was suspended for five games at the beginning of the 1997 season.
DMN columnist Tim Cowlishaw wrote a column on the punishment which generally reflects my sentiments.
MORE WORDS AND CONSEQUENCES
Among other sentences, it contains the phrases: Please, tell me who killed my dog. I miss him very much. I'll kill you all! You all killed my dog because you all hated him."
As part of the "conceptual" nature of her work, she posted the unsigned drawing on a classroom door.
In response, a three-person school district suspension committee determined that the work constituted a "threat of violence" agains the school and suspended Sarah for the remainder of the school year. The school principal would only comment, "I think the words speak for themselves."
Sarah and her parents are appealing the suspension.
According to the Dallas Observer, Chris turned in "a muddled and messy first-person tale about shooting three classmates and his teacher and snorting Freon. '...[A]bout 20 kids started cracking up & it pissed me off so I shot Matt, Jake, & and Ben starting laughing so hard that I acssedently [sic] shot Mrs. Henry."
The local district attorney dropped the charges only after extensive Dallas-Fort Worth media coverage. AND FINALLY - But You Thought ... returns!
Since only dedicated Chanticleer reader Katy Beth seemed to figure out the Discussion Board, with this issue I'm re-instituting the popular But You Thought ... section. This provides you with a forum for responding, instigating, opining, rebutting, and otherwise commenting on the issues discussed on these pages, or any other pages. Please send those comments to: webmaster@dfwcgs.net
|
Site Search
|
|