SCIENCE: More Things Suck Than Not

Scientists at the joint NASA/NSA/NAS/SNA/ANS research project revealed that in November, we crossed a tipping point at which more things suck than not. Their findings, to be published this month in the JOURNAL OF VICISSITUDINAL OUTCOMES, reflect the convergence of several independent indicators, including voter turnout, consumer confidence, cultural climate, opioid use, plate tectonics, maximum absorbancy, recommended daily allowance, mortgage interest rates, average life expectancy and chocolate consumption. These factors, which are generally regarded as notoriously difficult to correlate, provide a disturbing picture of the general suckiness of things, the scientists said.

The scientists applied a variety of sophisticated information visualization algorithms derived from work done for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Using these techniques, the research team were able to produce computer graphics, many in 3D, showing sharply declining trends and downward spirals. The scatter plot, in particular, shows a widespread range of data samples with no compensating pattern or arrangement.

Scientists were unable to comment on whether this trend was likely to continue or to reverse itself, but expressed confidence that they would continue to mine the data as thoroughly as possible.

The Case Against Hillary Clinton

We know from this week’s Republican Convention that Hillary Clinton is the most nefarious criminal of all time. She has only avoided indictment, prosecution, conviction and incarceration because all of the agencies that might bring her to justice, including Congress, the FBI, the Justice Department and the Court of Public Opinion are all so swooney in love with her.

Hillary, who continually flouts the laws of fashion by dressing like a Weeble (“Weebles wobble, but they don’t fall down!”), could very well be the first president to be impeached before being elected.

In fact, in just the past few years, Hillary Clinton personally led the 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, and knowingly sent highly confidential state secrets to everyone at Starbucks using their public Wi-Fi. Of course, she’s never had to answer for any of this … never had to testify before a congressional committee or endure an FBI investigation … because she’s so wildly liked by everyone, despite the incredible amount of unquestionable evidence these interrogators might have found.

Hillary poses as someone who cares about people, but in fact, she only cares about average or disadvantaged people. She has completely failed to accommodate the unfortunate wealthy. Even now, these upper class job creators are facing unsurmountable challenges in having to pay taxes, and having to bend over backwards to avoid destroying the environment or produce safe products.

And she has completely failed to utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism”, which, like a magic spell, would make the threat immediately disappear.

Fortunately, we have a strong contingent of Trump supporters now mustering in Cleveland. These defenders of American greatness have inspired each other with such unassailable logic as “You deserve better because America deserves better” and “U.S.A.! … U.S.A.! … U.S.A.! … U.S.A.! …”

These staunch defenders of freedom are our best hope against Darth Clinton.

Limerick of the Day #135

We’re all fretting about Donald Trump

Who is really a pain in the rump

Not just for the sane

But the other inane

G.O.P. candidates on the stump.

Political Games

Politics is a game. As much as we might like to think we’re electing Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, all we ever really get is a pack of deal-makers. Because that’s the game. The only way politicians get what they’re after is by giving some other politicians what they’re after.

So you might think voters would want the best players on their teams … the politicians who are really good at this game. You might think, for example, that someone like Mississippi’s Senator Thad Cochran, who has brought billions of federal dollars to his home state, would be a shoe-in. Plus he goes by the name Thad! How many Thads do you know? But he’s facing a run-off against primary challenger Chris McDaniel.

You might also think Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader and strong contender for Speaker of the House, would be valued for his obvious skill at playing the game. But you’d be wrong.

This is like voters in Red Sox nation saying, “Gee, David Ortiz is too much of a Fenway insider. Let’s replace him … maybe one of those Jordan’s Furniture guys.”

NOTE: This post was written weeks in advance of publication. If for some reason Eric Cantor was not defeated in Virginia's 7^th district primary on June 10, please disregard.

Politician Aptitude Test

Have things changed at all since the Revolution?
Should every gun lover be permitted to carry?
Do you believe in the theory of evolution?
Do you think gays have a right to marry?

Do you think more guns make this a safer place?
Does a 2-cell zygote have more soul than a cow?
Should colleges look at an applicant’s race?
Is the climate changing with effects right now?

Do you believe in public education
Or any assistance for struggling poor
Like access to healthcare and medication?
Should we drill for oil both on- and off-shore?

Can you quote the party line each time you pander,
And not have to fallback on insight or candor?

News in Review

Mandela’s Funeral

Senator Ted Cruz, in a remarkable display of fortitude, walked out of Nelson Mandela’s memorial service to protest a speech by Cuba’s Raoul Castro. Cruz also signaled his disapproval by placing gum on the Cuban leader’s chair, and drawing a mustache and glasses on his picture.

The Budget

The Senate, anxious to begin recess so the members can shop for their wives, lovers and other partners on their lists, is moving forward on a compromise budget amid arguments over who is most unhappy with it. Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner, in a remarkable display of fortitude, vowed not to cave to the same extreme groups he has always caved to in the past.

The NSA

Facing congressional investigation, the NSA has said in its defense: “Hey! We’re not snooping on everyone. We didn’t know what Snowden was up to!”

Health care

Americans can rest assured that the beleaguered Obamacare Web site is now safely in the hands of the former head of Microsoft Office. Users can expect the same reliability and user-friendliness that has characterized that product.

For a good time, call ...

Gary Hart
Clarence Thomas
Bill Clinton
Mark Foley
John Edwards
Eliot Spitzer
Larry Craig
John Ensign
Mark Sanford
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Anthony Weiner
David Petraeus

And so on, and so on. The same story over and over again.

That's what wrong with this country. We've lost our innovativeness.

How to Vote

Everybody seems to agonize over the elections. It’s really much simpler than people seem to think.

First, turn off the TV and radio, and close the newspapers. They just tell you what the candidates are doing and saying. That really doesn’t matter. They'll do or say anything to get elected. They're like little kids before Christmas. Of course, the media want you to think it matters because that’s how they sell advertising. But really, it comes down to just two questions:

1. What does the candidate want to do?
2. How effective will he be in doing it?

In other words, does he have good ideas, and is he likely to get them acted on? (I’m using “he” here for the current presidential contest, but this works for any candidate.)

So the results can be summed up in this table:

	Ideas
Effectiveness	good	bad
dynamo	3	0
dork	2	1

Obviously your best option is someone who can get good ideas acted on. Someone who can get bad ideas executed is the worst possibility. If neither candidate can get anything done, you’re still better off with one who has good ideas. In short, just look them up in the table and vote for the candidate with the highest score.

Now, how does this apply to the current presidential race? First lets look at the ideas department.

Romney, like pretty much all Republicans, wants to get government (welfare, police, firefighters, teachers, etc.) off the backs of corporations and rich people. Those corporations and rich people will then make sure that everyone who’s worthy will be able to get a job, and that all products will be safe and environment-friendly.

Obama, like pretty much all Democrats, thinks government should protect the public by providing services and regulating businesses so even the underprivileged have a viable lifestyle, and so we don't screw up the planet too much. You can decide for yourself which are good or bad ideas.

And effectiveness? Of course, there are degrees between dynamo and dork, but lets pretend we can view everything in the extreme. (Isn’t that part of the fun of politics?)

Obama has faced very stiff opposition, and yet was able to pass the Affordable Care Act, target and kill Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders, get rid of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and accomplish various other progressive measures. On the other hand, he has not been able to get rid of the Bush-era Tax Cuts for the wealthy, he gave up on the single-payer/public option for health care, and he has not exactly turned the economy around.

Stunningly, Romney has been very effective at accomplishing the exact opposite of what he now proposes. At Bain, he destroyed jobs, and as Governor of Massachusetts, he instituted near universal health coverage with mandatory insurance, raised revenue, upheld abortion rights (for a while, anyway), supported some gun control, and endorsed same-sex unions (for a while anyway, and not including marriage.) So does this make him a very effective flip-flopper, or a very ineffective conservative? Hard to say.

Of course, it’s almost impossible for anyone to be really effective given the partisanship of Washington. (That’s the other part of the fun of politics.) So it comes down to a choice between two marginally effective candidates. Pick the one whose ideas suck less.

K.I.N.T.S.S.

As another election season threatens to overwhelm us with noxious campaign ads ("I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this mixed message"), it's useful to remember the value of complexity.

Yes, that's right.  Complexity. I know there's a popular slogan, "Keep it simple, stupid," or KISS, that some people take religiously.  But remember what Einstein said: "Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler." In other words, some things are just NOT simple.  Government is one of them.

It's easy to be drawn in by simple slogans.  "Drill, baby, drill!"  "9-9-9," "No new taxes," etc.  These are the basis of what are now called sound bites. But to think that a workable policy can be built around these simplifications is just ... well, simple-minded. There's so much going on in the world.  The economy depends on many U.S. and International conditions.  That, in turn, affects jobs, dependence on foreign oil, etc.  And those then further effect the economy.  Everything is circular.

So when you hear someone offering simple solutions, you can be pretty sure they're just that ... simple.

Politics As Usual

The Government They Deserve

The two pillars of the United States, democracy and capitalism, are both based on the concept of competition. In a democracy, as in capitalism, politicians and products compete for your votes or your dollars (or both) by trying to appear to be just what you need.

We, as good Americans, know that competition has to be fair. That means that the competitors, whether they be politicians or feminine hygiene products, have to be on a level playing field. If politicians were permitted to say things that are not true, for example, or if advertisers were permitted to make exaggerated claims, the system would not work. We'd have no good way to decide which douche or which feminine hygiene product to choose.

Luckily, as we know, competition forces everyone to be honest.  No politician would ever mislead voters on a policy or cheat on a spouse for fear of being exposed in the media.  No advertiser would downplay a product's safety hazards, or risk annoying a TV audience with obnoxious commercials, because that would just give the advantage to a competitor.

But this isn't natural selection. Darwin's form of competition is about species surviving or not based on their own strengths and abilities. In politics and sales, however, the winners are the ones who capture the hearts and minds of other people. There's no steel cage death match between Democrats and Republicans (though I'd bet the Nielsens would be through the roof!)  There's no showdown between Coke's bottled tap water and Pepsi's.

It's only natural that our lives revolve around competition.  We LOVE to compete.  On TV, people compete at everything from ballroom dancing to cooking to answering trivia questions. If life doesn't give us enough areas to be competitive, we invent new ones, like Wheel of Fortune or Wipeout.  We give prizes for Best Original Song in a Picture Adapted From Another Source and Hottest Singles Under 40 With Fewer Than 3 Dental Crowns. It seems the loftiest human goal is to find something at which you can be better than others.

That's why school athletics programs should be the last things cut when budgets are tight. Athletics are where kids learn about competing, from the examples set by their parents.

Remember, it's not how you play the game.  It's whether you win or lose!