Wandering Wednesday

First, an apology to WordPress, the platform that hosts this blog. In yesterday’s post, Strange Minds, I asked why the word “dreamt” was underlined in red while composing a post since it is a real word. Well, I asked one of the WordPress engineers that question and they replied that WordPress does not have an active dictionary monitoring posts. The engineer suggested it could be my browser or even operating system.

Second, while I am always grateful for views/comments by markcars2014 and other Canadian readers, I want to note that Disaffected Musings has, seemingly, developed regular readers in Italy, Norway and my ancestral home of Poland. I hope they will continue reading and, hopefully, spread the word.



How many of you have heard of the site postsecret? It was created by Frank Warren in 2004. People anonymously send in their secrets on postcards, which are often homemade, and some are shown on the site.

It is a relic, for lack of a better word, of the days on the Internet before Fack Fucebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. The site has always been ad-free. For a time, so many secrets were sent in that Warren was able to publish several books containing them.

Some of the secrets are shocking and/or sad. I have always suspected that some proportion, say 20%, are not real. I don’t mean that Warren sends them in himself or via proxies, but that the “secrets” on some postcards are simply made up, perhaps as some sort of wish fulfillment.

Anyway…the picture above is captured from postsecret. I love Fack Fucebook being on the list of apps that don’t bring joy to the user. Here are two results from a study by Stanford University:


Facebook deactivation reduced political polarization

One of the biggest issues supposedly affecting the US voting base at the moment is political polarization — this is the idea that Democrats and Republicans are unwilling to compromise on issues that affect the entire country.

The study found that deactivating Facebook pulls former users more into line with the average position in their respective political parties. Essentially, this means that Facebook deactivation brings users closer to the political center. But, has social media actively led to the increase in polarization, or have the parties and voters drifted further apart of their own volition? According to the study:

“The figure shows that deactivation moves both Democrats and Republicans visibly towards the center. In the control group, the issue opinions of the average Democrat and the average Republican differ by 1.47 standard deviations. In the treatment group, this difference is 1.35 standard deviations — about eight percent less.

“Are these polarization effects large or small? As one benchmark, we can compare these effects to the increase in political polarization in the US since 1996, well before the advent of social media. Using data from the American National Election Studies… [another academic] calculates that the change in a different index of polarization… increased by 0.38 standard deviations between 1996 and 2016. The 0.16 standard deviation effect of Facebook deactivation on political polarization in our sample is about 42 percent as large as this increase.”


Facebook deactivation marginally improves subjective wellbeing

Perhaps the most interesting revelation from the study is that Facebook “does indeed have adverse effects on subjective well being.”


I know that my anti-Facebook rantings will not get anyone to stop using it. I suspect a larger proportion of readers of this blog don’t use Fack Fucebook than the proportion of the general public. I will make a strong statement: I think Mark Zuckerberg is the chief criminal of his criminal company and I think that Facebook should be forced to divest itself of Instagram and What’s App. The possibility that such a divestiture may raise the unit cost of digital advertising is a very small price to pay for stripping Fack Fucebook of its de facto monopoly of social media and for reducing the dangerous amount of power it has. Oh, here’s a remark made by Zuckerberg:


“You can be unethical and still be legal; that’s the way I live my life.”


For me, someone who admits to unethical behavior has no real constraints against using illegal behavior. That’s a trade-off almost no one can negotiate successfully. Fack Fucebook! Delete Facebook!


Given the dramatic slowdown in the number of showings we’ve had for our house between weeks one and two on the market, I must admit to having some doubt that the move to the desert will take place as quickly as I would like. Of course, that means that the quest for a Corvette Companion/Grocery Car has been pushed to the back burner.

Still, I look on car sales websites almost every day although the “journeys” are much shorter than before. I have to admit that despite the change to looking for more modern cars, every now and then I look at something like this:



From this Hemmings ad a picture of a 1963 Buick Wildcat with an admittedly less than desirable 87,000+ miles on the clock and an asking price of $19,900. Throw in the black interior, a no-go in the desert, and this becomes an impractical purchase. Nevertheless, I am really drawn to this car. The heart wants what it wants.









If you like this blog please tell your friends and share the blog URL (https://disaffectedmusings.com). Thanks.



Sad Saturday

I am sad today. My wonderful wife has left for a week-long business/pleasure trip. I am always unhappy when she leaves, which thankfully is not too often since she was promoted two years ago.

I abhor “macho” behavior, which I distinguish from heroic behavior. Men who trash their wives to other men, who engage in foolhardy activities because “we’re men” are simpletons in my opinion. If you are always complaining about your wife then why did you marry her? I love my wife and very much enjoy her company. That’s what marriage is supposed to be, right?


BillBabowsky commented on Ferrari or Lamborghini? by asking for my opinion on his father’s two favorite cars, the 1955 Chevrolet and the 1960 Ford Falcon. I replied that I like the ’55 the most of the Tri-Five Chevys (1955-57) and while all Mustang fans should appreciate the Falcon because the first Mustangs were built on a Falcon chassis, to me the ’60 Falcon is just a car.

In Fins, William Knoedelseder’s book about Harley Earl and General Motors, designer Bernie Smith is quoted as saying, “The ’55 Chevy was a real designer’s car; we all loved it.” Chuck Jordan, later the vice president of design for all of General Motors, said, “As designers, we didn’t like the ’57.” I am no designer, but I concur. I think the ’57 Chevys are overdone.

See the source image

From curbsideclassic.com a picture of a 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air. At that time the Bel Air was the top of the line model; the 150 was at “the bottom” and the 210 was in between. That hierarchy changed in 1958 with the introduction of the Impala, a model that became extraordinarily successful.


On this day in 1916 General Motors was incorporated in the state of Delaware. (Of course, since the 2009 bankruptcy that company no longer exists technically.) This iteration of the company was organized by the man who started GM in the first place, William C. Durant. General Motors was initially founded in 1908, but Durant was ousted in 1910 due to the large debt burden incurred as a result of the numerous acquisitions that formed GM. Durant then founded Chevrolet in 1911 and after a huge proxy fight (Durant, an almost obsessive player in the stock market, had secretly acquired a large block of GM shares since founding Chevrolet) he regained control of GM. He then merged Chevrolet with GM and incorporated on October 13, 1916. Durant was ousted for good in 1920; he had a great mind for big concepts, but could not execute the day-to-day details needed to run a company of any size, let alone one as large as GM. General Motors was the world’s largest automobile manufacturer for roughly three-quarters of a century, from the early 1930s until just before the “Great Recession.”


Seems like I should stick to GM today…what do you think of this car?

See the source image

From momentcar.com a photo of a 1963 Buick Wildcat. I can’t really tell from this perspective, but on many pictures of the same car the badging on the hood reads “Wildcat” and not “Buick.” I think these cars are very sharp. The Wildcat was powered by the famous “Nailhead” Buick V-8; this year the displacement was 401 cubic inches. This engine was rated at 325 HP, but 445 LB-FT of torque. Increased torque was the intent of the “Nailhead” design.

I am still dreaming that General Motors will wake up and let Buick sell an improved version of the Solstice/Sky as a halo car. I can dream, can’t I?




If you’re “on” Twitter, Disaffected Musings is there, too. My “handle” is @RulesofLogic1.