Olbermann blitzes Bush again
Damn. Keith Olbermann has now thoroughly established himself as the best journalist on television. (Granted, given the current state of affairs that’s half a compliment at best.)
His latest beatdown of the Bush Lie Factory is simply a marvel. Finally, real must-see TV…
lullaby pit 
i swear to god, this man expresses the anger and frustration and rage that i am feeling every time her speaks. thank god, someone on TV is saying these important thing. thank god we have him to cut through the bullshit. hopefully, people are listening to him. people who need convincing…
i swear to god, this man expresses the anger and frustration and rage that i am feeling every time her speaks. thank god, someone on TV is saying these important thing. thank god we have him to cut through the bullshit. hopefully, people are listening to him. people who need convincing…
The problem is that so many people who need to be listening already know he’s wrong because he’s a librul.
The problem is that so many people who need to be listening already know he’s wrong because he’s a librul.
which is the thing that pisses me off so much.
people are stupid.
which is the thing that pisses me off so much.
people are stupid.
Statistically speaking, half of all people possess below-average intelligence.
Statistically speaking, half of all people possess below-average intelligence.
Nah. It’s probably more like 45% because “average IQ” is probably a range. 🙂
Don’t mind the smart ass…
Nah. It’s probably more like 45% because “average IQ” is probably a range. 🙂
Don’t mind the smart ass…
Well, if you want to get all statistical, your mean IQ is ~100 and the standard deviation is ~20.
One interpretation would be that roughly 2/3 of all people are at 120 or less, and are of no greater than average intelligence.
Well, if you want to get all statistical, your mean IQ is ~100 and the standard deviation is ~20.
One interpretation would be that roughly 2/3 of all people are at 120 or less, and are of no greater than average intelligence.
OK, I was off by 5%. Only 40% are below average. And 20% of the population is average. And before I’ve had my 1st cup of coffee, I’m somewhere in the bottom 40%. 🙂 Not that it gets much higher AFTER the coffee.
OK, I was off by 5%. Only 40% are below average. And 20% of the population is average. And before I’ve had my 1st cup of coffee, I’m somewhere in the bottom 40%. 🙂 Not that it gets much higher AFTER the coffee.
Does he normally use the “Good night and good luck” sign off? I didn’t notice that in his 9/11 commentary. Word choice is a beautiful thing.
Does he normally use the “Good night and good luck” sign off? I didn’t notice that in his 9/11 commentary. Word choice is a beautiful thing.
He’s started doing that lately as a nod to Edward R Murrow. Not sure when he first did it, but he’s making a point about both the politics and journalism of our age in doing so.
He’s started doing that lately as a nod to Edward R Murrow. Not sure when he first did it, but he’s making a point about both the politics and journalism of our age in doing so.
If you want to be even more technical, average means “mean” and the mean intelligence is not the 50% point.
The “median” intelligence is defined as the 50% point.
If you want to be even more technical, average means “mean” and the mean intelligence is not the 50% point.
The “median” intelligence is defined as the 50% point.
Hmmm. In a sufficiently large sample and/or a perfectly distributed one, these are pretty much identical, right?
Hmmm. In a sufficiently large sample and/or a perfectly distributed one, these are pretty much identical, right?
“… Mr. Clinton was brave. Then again, Chris Wallace was braver still; had I, in one moment, surrendered all my credibility as a journalist and been irredeemably humiliated – as was he – I woulda gone home and started a new career selling (C’s? seeds?) by mail.”
“… Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgement that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by someone who read the Orwell playbook – too quickly.”
… Goddamn. This guy isn’t just a breath of fresh air; he’s like … it’s like a renewal of the entire atmosphere.
Where the hell is everybody else? Where are all the other so-called journalists and newscasters? Where is the Democratic party?
Thank you for posting this.
“… Mr. Clinton was brave. Then again, Chris Wallace was braver still; had I, in one moment, surrendered all my credibility as a journalist and been irredeemably humiliated – as was he – I woulda gone home and started a new career selling (C’s? seeds?) by mail.”
“… Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgement that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by someone who read the Orwell playbook – too quickly.”
… Goddamn. This guy isn’t just a breath of fresh air; he’s like … it’s like a renewal of the entire atmosphere.
Where the hell is everybody else? Where are all the other so-called journalists and newscasters? Where is the Democratic party?
Thank you for posting this.
If KO’s ratings rise – which I think they are – then you’ll see other folks starting to grow nards. The question is whether there’s a market for intelligence and courage….
If KO’s ratings rise – which I think they are – then you’ll see other folks starting to grow nards. The question is whether there’s a market for intelligence and courage….
There’s always a market for that. Too bad there’s always so few people selling …
There’s always a market for that. Too bad there’s always so few people selling …
That’s exactly my point. By using Murrow’s famous sign off (which I must admit I only know because of George Clooney), Olbermann’s associating himself with a giant killer. His message is certainly powerful enough without it, but he puts it in anyway. I just found that interesting.
That’s exactly my point. By using Murrow’s famous sign off (which I must admit I only know because of George Clooney), Olbermann’s associating himself with a giant killer. His message is certainly powerful enough without it, but he puts it in anyway. I just found that interesting.
It’s bold, and I guess some would argue that it’s arrogant. But arrogance is a function of ability to attitude, and I’m fine with making grand claims if you can deliver.
So far, KO is delivering big time. It’s magical to watch, and here’s hoping his crusade is vindicated as thoroughly as was Murrow’s.
It’s bold, and I guess some would argue that it’s arrogant. But arrogance is a function of ability to attitude, and I’m fine with making grand claims if you can deliver.
So far, KO is delivering big time. It’s magical to watch, and here’s hoping his crusade is vindicated as thoroughly as was Murrow’s.
Now all we need is for Clinton and several of his former staffers to produce copies of the documents which Condi says don’t exist. Oh, excuse me … they’ll have to produce the documents and evidence that they were given to the Bush administration.
Sure, BushCo and the Neocons will come up with some fantasy to wish the evidence away, but at least, for those of us who still believe in, y’know, looking at facts, will be able to call the liars liars.
Now all we need is for Clinton and several of his former staffers to produce copies of the documents which Condi says don’t exist. Oh, excuse me … they’ll have to produce the documents and evidence that they were given to the Bush administration.
Sure, BushCo and the Neocons will come up with some fantasy to wish the evidence away, but at least, for those of us who still believe in, y’know, looking at facts, will be able to call the liars liars.
(the Anon poster was me, BTW)
It depends on the distribution. Gaussian/normal or uniform probability distributions, the median will approach the mean with a large enough sample (and will be the mean for a perfect Gaussian or uniform distribution). However, there are distributions (the Poisson, for example, which looks like a skewed normal) where the mean and median are quite different and will never approach each other no matter how large the distribution.
For some interesting graphs of data, some of which look like normal, others which are Poisson, and others that are just freaky looking, check out this link: 2005 CSAP Technical Report and go scope out Appendix A.
(the Anon poster was me, BTW)
It depends on the distribution. Gaussian/normal or uniform probability distributions, the median will approach the mean with a large enough sample (and will be the mean for a perfect Gaussian or uniform distribution). However, there are distributions (the Poisson, for example, which looks like a skewed normal) where the mean and median are quite different and will never approach each other no matter how large the distribution.
For some interesting graphs of data, some of which look like normal, others which are Poisson, and others that are just freaky looking, check out this link: 2005 CSAP Technical Report and go scope out Appendix A.
The sample in this case would be pretty much the human race. Some days I think it’s a normal bell curve distribution, and other days I think it looks more like the letter P laid on its back.
The sample in this case would be pretty much the human race. Some days I think it’s a normal bell curve distribution, and other days I think it looks more like the letter P laid on its back.
A P laying on its back is essentially a Poisson distribution, and it’s probably more closely representative of the human race’s IQ curve than a normal/Gaussian/bell curve is, actually. If for no other reason than the fact that there is a bottom limit to the curve (IQ=0) when there isn’t an upper limit to the curve, just a tail that stretches on to infinity with a decreasing probability of a person being that smart.
A P laying on its back is essentially a Poisson distribution, and it’s probably more closely representative of the human race’s IQ curve than a normal/Gaussian/bell curve is, actually. If for no other reason than the fact that there is a bottom limit to the curve (IQ=0) when there isn’t an upper limit to the curve, just a tail that stretches on to infinity with a decreasing probability of a person being that smart.
15% range from 85-115.
15% range from 85-115.