Saturday, March 6, 2010

What Can Browne Do For You?

Superstar Psychic Sylvia Browne claims an accuracy rate in her "readings" of around 85%-90%. While some of her predictions are too vague to be verifiable, a lot of them are. Researchers Ryan Shaffer and Agatha Jadwiszczok itemized 115 predictions (all they could find) that Ms. Browne had made about missing persons and murder cases and then they checked to see how many of them had been accurate.

90 of the 115 are either open or unconfirmable cases. That is, there has been no disposition or evidence that would show whether Browne was right or wrong. Of the remaining 25, her predictions have proven to be wrong in...well, wait a second. Let me go back to the article and see how many of those readings turned out to be correct. Even though I don't believe in this kind of thing, you figure that just making wild guesses, a person would be right once in a while.

Okay, I just checked what these researchers wrote and according to them, the number of times Browne was right in those 25 cases is zero. Wrong every time. If you want to look for yourself, here's the link. They quote the prediction and then they cite a news source for the actual outcome.

The sad part is that this won't matter to most of the people who seek out Sylvia Browne's aid and pay her what are often large sums of money for this kind of "advice." It won't even stop Larry King from having her on his show and drumming up more customers for her.

• Posted at 11:11 PM · LINK

Go Read It!

Hey, remember Julia Sweeney, who was so wonderful on Saturday Night Live for several seasons? I saw her in a one-woman show a few years after that and she was quite amazing (in a good way) in that, too. So whatever happened to her? My pal Bruce Reznick sent me this link that'll clue you in. (The article is, by the way, by Mary Schmich, who writes the Brenda Starr newspaper strip. Not that that's relevant but I like to notice that kind of thing.)

• Posted at 4:49 PM · LINK

Unrecommended Reading

Last night, I read this piece in Vanity Fair about the scandal/crime involving David Letterman and an alleged extortionist. I don't know the facts of the case...and I also don't know that I (or you) have any particular right to know the facts of this case. But the article itself certainly felt to me about as sleazy as anything that Letterman or his supposed blackmailer were involved in. So I decided not to post the link even to tell you that I would not recommend taking at face value what you may find at the other end of the link.

I'm in a different mood this afternoon and maybe I'll regret it...but there it is. The whole tone of the piece makes me not believe it's giving us the true picture, just the juiciest one. Perhaps your reaction will differ.

• Posted at 3:58 PM · LINK

Doing Nothing...Nothing Doing

One of my long-standing pet peeves is what I call Plans Without Action. I could cite many examples but I'm thinking now of a producer I worked for years ago who liked to chair big staff meetings with everyone crowded around the conference table. We'd have a problem — say, too much money being spent on donuts. And we'd argue about the problem, discuss various ways of tackling the problem, propose and debate various solutions, etc. These meetings would always go on for much, much longer than the dilemma deserved...to the point where I'd always suggest we needed a staff meeting to discuss how to cut down on staff meetings. But at some point, having figured out a number of constructive ways to solve The Great Donut Spending Crisis, we'd adjourn...

...and then no one would do anything.

No one would get around to doing anything we'd discussed. None of the solutions would be implemented. The show would continue to spend just as much on donuts as it ever had. But somehow, everyone would feel good that they'd put in some hours and energy on the problem. And if I or someone said, "Hey, this problem still exists," the response would be, "Hey, we had a three-hour meeting and came up with a number of good solutions."

Somehow, that felt better...made folks feel like they weren't so helpless in the face of the problem, I guess. But I used to argue that having the meeting and not acting on its recommendations was basically the same thing as never doing anything. In some ways, it was worse. It's a lot quicker and easier to just do nothing than to have a three-hour meeting and then do nothing. I also think that having the meeting created the illusion that something was being done...and sometimes, such illusions get in the way of actual problem-solving.

I'm starting to feel that way when someone says, "The government needs to spend less" and then doesn't specify what should be cut. Fine. The government needs to spend less. We all agree. And the air should be cleaner and unemployment should be lower and all the good-tasting foods shouldn't be high in calories. But to me, saying the government needs to spend less is a Plan Without Action. It feels like doing something but isn't.

I keep reading articles and op-eds where folks say the beast has gotten too large. It's immense and it's growing larger and any day now, it's going to step on us all and grind us into oblivion. And then they either offer no way to make the beast smaller or, at most, suggest trimming its toenails.

Sometimes, when you offer a minuscule solution to a huge dilemma, you're off to a good start and, hey, you gotta start somewhere. But sometimes, the minuscule solution is another one of those "Let's pretend we're solving the problem" things.

I have no solution to any of these challenges like cutting government spending. Hey, I'm doing well if I can cut what I spend on computer equipment by a few bucks a week. That's okay because, you know, I write cartoons and comic books and TV shows. Dealing with the national deficit is not up to me, which is great because I'm never going to do anything that will solve that crisis or anything of the sort. The one thing I'll say in my defense is that at least I'm honest enough to admit it.

More and more as I get older, I believe that pretending (or even intending) to do something and not doing anything is usually the same thing as not doing anything...or maybe even less. And about all we onlookers can do is to be able to tell the difference and not get them confused. And if we can do that, maybe we can spark someone into actually doing something.

• Posted at 1:57 PM · LINK

Today's Video Link

An important word from Stan Lee...

• Posted at 12:03 AM · LINK