ThomStratton.com

The wisdom of crowds is very suspect when we keep electing these idiots to power. This latest payroll tax cut extension debacle is just another fine example of screwing the American people to win ideological battles. This article sums the issue up.

Now in general I tend to favor the Republicans, but only just barely. If the two parties were represented as clocks, the Republicans are traditional 12-hour clock, and the Democrats are on 24-hour time. But quite frankly, both their clocks are broken, and so the Republicans are only right once more per day than the Democrats.

All things considered, I think America would be better off if Congress in general just stayed home and stopped trying to run the country. “Nothing at all” would be better than what we’re getting. You only have to look at the polls to see that if our national government were subject to a confidence vote they’d all be thrown out of office. Perhaps the Supreme Court would be all that’s left. I think they’re the only branch that is still remotely functional. Their batting average might at least get them a seat in the dugout on a major league team.

But frankly this latest round of stupidity is just astounding. We have the Dems championing a cut to funding for Social Security. We have the Reps opposing a tax cut, a postponement of the light bulb ban, and a quick decision on the Canada oil pipeline. On the face of it, you’d think this was all a big practical joke.

I agree with the Republicans on their frustration that the Dems want to only renew the tax cut for two months. Seriously, what good is that? All this really means is that the Dems have found an issue they can use to beat up the Reps, and they want to bring it back as often as they can.

Add to the fact that the Democratic Senate STILL has not passed a national budget since before Obama took office and we have to keep voting up some more funding every quarter to keep the government operating. How long can we keep kicking these cans down the road? Why is it not a single controversial bill can be passed for more than a few months at a time?

Obviously the Democrats are desperate to avoid making any difficult decisions and want to keep punting for the short term in case the economy somehow miraculously comes rocketing back and gives them a reprieve on having to figure out how to keep our country solvent. I guess all that mess in Europe just isn’t convincing enough. (?!?!)

And the Republicans can’t seem to frame a debate to save their lives. The media seems disinclined to help, of course, but just how did this get turned around on them so badly? They allowed themselves to be stuck opposing a bill that, as far as the public sees, is nearly everything they claim they want! Yes, we’d love to see a year-long solution, too, but in lieu of that, why stop the whole darn show over the duration?

If there were other problems with the bill they didn’t even seem to try to communicate that. Nor did they try to point out that they had already passed a bill that the Senate also refused to look at. Harry “I Hate Anything From the House” Reid did the same thing to the House as the House tried to do the the Senate, and no one called him on it. They got away with it because they did it first!

So instead of seeing that they were caught, the stupid Republicans tried to take a principled stand without bothering to point out the principles at stake. They missed a prime opportunity to be the Good Guys and make a broad public statement that in the interest of the country they would go ahead and pass the bill, even though they had serious concerns about the Senate’s insistance on punting yet again. PR opportunity missed, big time. And it still took them a week to figure out they’d failed.

But frankly, this whole thing mainly just proves that the Congress we’ve got is just too stupid to govern. They’re in a death match to be king of the dunghill. My young children are better at reaching compromises than these fools. They’re much better at reading the winds and knowing when to settle for what they’ve got.

Seriously. Let’s take a different elementary school each week and send them to Congress. We’d get better results.

Is it any wonder that 2.5 million Americans have lapsed their party registration, while the number of registered Independents is rising? Both parties are in a dead heat to become the “Party of Epic Fail.”

But then we evidently aren’t any smarter. We keep electing these clowns.

An entire town mesmerized by a cow on the lamb? I give you Ninja Cow!

Wayward livestock can pose serious threats to human and other animals. Even a small deer can destroy a car, seriously injuring the occupants in a collision. Still, for months, the Ninja Cow eluded police and locals, making late night appearances on private lawns, leaving behind only cowpies as evidence of its existence.

The effort to bring in, or even bring down, the Ninja Cow was not lacking. Police and local experts tried just about everything from luring the cow with biscuits and gravy to capturing her on an infrared camera. They played cow sounds on a laptop. But every attempt failed. Pretty much the only thing they didn’t try was recreating the cow costume from Top Secret.

It even ended with a dramatic ending as the local police chief felt he had no choice but to kill Ninja Cow. Fortunately that wasn’t necessary. Ninja Cow is now in custody and has been cowed into submission. For now. Perhaps she is only waiting for the right opportunity to break free and continue her reign of terror!

My dad always had a saying, “Figures don’t lie, but liars will figure.” Or something like that. The other day on the radio I heard a news report that used a seemingly shocking statistic–shocking unless you actually thought about it. The claim was that online firearm sales have increased dramatically over the past 15 years.

At first blink that sounds alarming–and perhaps it is–but what is it really saying? Consider that Amazon.com went online in 1996–fifteen years ago. Was much of anything being sold online prior to that? That’s almost like saying the number of Amazon.com customers has risen dramatically over the past 15 years. Well, duh! I’m pretty sure the increase has been astronomical compared to the previous 15 years before Amazon.com existed. All they’re really saying is that firearm sales online have increased as the level of online shopping has increased. And who would be surprised by that?

And just what is considered “dramatic”, anyway? You could say that gun sales have increased 500%, and that would be dramatic. But if in 1996 only 100 guns were sold online, increasing that to 500 guns being sold in 2011 isn’t really that dramatic. If the figure went from 100 guns in 1996 to 100,000,000 in 2011–that would be dramatic. But the story didn’t say, so we’re left to decide for ourselves just how scary this scary statistic is supposed to be.

This post is not a pro/anti-gun post. It’s an anti-stupid-statistics post. It could have been Barbie dolls for all I care. The real news in this story would have been if online sales of Item X had not increased dramatically over the last 15. That would be an example of something bucking a trend, and that would be news.

But when they offer a no-brainer statistic like that disguised as something shocking and alarmist they’re shooting their credibility in the foot and leaving themselves open to accusations of bias. And those accusations would easy to believe. What possible purpose could a journalist have for making a statistic sound worse than it is, if not to raise support for the side that would like to see that statistic lowered? This happened to be part of a news story on a new bill trying to regulate online gun sales. Shoddy reporting now makes it appear as if this reporter, if not her network, supports gun control.

Chances are the reporter was just trying to make the story sound interesting at all. Senators trying to control gun sales–that’s not exactly news. Online gun sales increasing is not news either. So why not get to the heart of the matter and report actual news and give a useful statistic, like the number of gun sales online last year compared to “brick-n-mortar” sales, followed by the reason why this is important; most, if not all, of those sales were conducted without proper identification being checked on either side of the deal, and without being subject to the same regulations and background checks that physical gunshops are subject to?

Now that I’ve had a chance to think this through I’ve decided that perhaps there may be a reason to be concerned about online gun sales. While I generally support gun ownership rights, I’m not necessarily in the NRA camp on this. I do support waiting periods and background checks. Most online purchases have their own waiting periods built in–usually longer than those required by law in most states. If there are no background checks being conducted, though, I think that’s a problem. I believe individuals selling to individuals are not subject to background checks, but if there are online businesses getting away with not conducting background checks, then that’s not right. But the news story doesn’t say.

So again, the news reporter was not really doing her job. Yes, I’m aware of the problem now–or at least that somoeone else thinks there’s a problem. But I’m not given enough information to really decide for myself. This is typical. Far too often the news media goes for sensationalism and emotionalism rather than actually informing or trying to present both sides fairly.

So we’re left to decide based on our own prejudices. I disagree with gun control in general, so I tend to view the sensationalistic use of statistics and lack of real information as an attack on gun rights. Someone who supports gun control will likely view this as a substantive proof that they are right to want to further control guns. We would both be wrong in those assumptions. We simply aren’t given enough information to form a rational opinion.

We are given information designed to create a response, and while some will argue with me, I’m not so sure the journalists care what that response is, so long as there is one and we keep coming back to their news source. There have been some groups of journalists (ie. Journo-List) exposed for trying to influence public opinion in a specific, mutually-agreed direction, but I suspect for the most part journalists write what they right for one simple, non-malicious, rather mundane reason: They like being employed. They stay employed by keeping readers coming back. Readers will keep coming back if there is an emotional connection. People are just as likely to keep returning to a news source that makes them angry as one that makes them feel good.

The result is journalism that is light on detail, but heavy on weighting. It’s push-button journalism, ie. news designed to push people’s hot-buttons. But it’s also sloppy journalism, and we all need to pay closer attention and be prepared to call them on it.

So here it is: “Online gun sales have risen dramatically since they started selling guns online” is sloppy journalism! Whomever wrote that needs to go back to journalism school–and serve detention.

I am an introvert. I admit it with pride. It takes work to be an introvert, but not as much work as it would take for me to be an extrovert. I can be extroverted, but I’ll be wiped out for the rest of the day.

CarlKingdom.com has a great post about the 10 Myths About Introverts that I recommend you read, whether you are an extrovert or an introvert. Extroverts need to get to know us, and introverts need to be reminded that we’re okay too. A few highlights:

Myth #1 – Introverts don’t like to talk.
This is not true. Introverts just don’t talk unless they have something to say. They hate small talk. Get an introvert talking about something they are interested in, and they won’t shut up for days.

Myth #2 – Introverts are shy.
Shyness has nothing to do with being an Introvert. Introverts are not necessarily afraid of people. What they need is a reason to interact. They don’t interact for the sake of interacting. If you want to talk to an Introvert, just start talking. Don’t worry about being polite.

Myth #3 – Introverts are rude.
Introverts often don’t see a reason for beating around the bush with social pleasantries. They want everyone to just be real and honest. Unfortunately, this is not acceptable in most settings, so Introverts can feel a lot of pressure to fit in, which they find exhausting.

Myth #4 – Introverts don’t like people.
On the contrary, Introverts intensely value the few friends they have. They can count their close friends on one hand. If you are lucky enough for an introvert to consider you a friend, you probably have a loyal ally for life. Once you have earned their respect as being a person of substance, you’re in.

I once worked at a company where I got in trouble for being an introvert. They wanted me to become an extrovert, essentially, which just isn’t my style. Fortunately for me I was able to fake it long enough to get them used to me and and how I work, and for me to make deep enough connections with my group that I felt more comfortable opening up and being myself.

Fortunately the company I work for now is more mature in that regard. It took me awhile here, too, but I’m now comfortable enough to crack jokes in front of my boss. To my knowledge no one has been concerned that I’m not talking enough. They seem to realize that I like to know what I’m talking about before I talk. I like to know “the rules” before I just dive in.

It’s rather funny, really. It was the big, Fortune 40 companywith a bunch of diversity programs in place that had the biggest problem with my being an introvert. It’s the smaller companies that seem to accept me as I am. I work for a bank currently. You know, those big, stodgy, last bastions of high-collared conformity. I’ve had very little trouble fitting in here. But that could be because they knew up front what they were getting, and they were mature enough to accept that. They haven’t tried to change me, but have largely trusted me to find my own way.

So relax, all you extroverts, and just understand where we introverts are coming from. We can and will get to all the places we need to be–we just don’t take the same road to get there.

John Stossel makes a very good point: Government doesn’t create jobs. It simply takes money that might have created a real job and gives it to someone to do work for the government that probably didn’t really need doing (if it had, the job would have already existed, no?).

Private wealth-holders create jobs. Our investor created jobs. He gave us the money to start our video game business, which now is self-sufficient and pushing toward profitability. Two families are being supported from the seed money he put in. If things continue to grow at the rate they have been we will need to hire employees by the end of next year. That is job creation: jobs that didn’t exist previously that are being paid for out of income those jobs produce.

Government jobs don’t do that. Government bungling, bad-mouthing, and over-regulation destroy jobs. Government oversight creates a business environment that favors large corporations. Our current economic situation is nothing but a mass of unintended consequences brought on by well-intentioned (I’m feeling charitable today) politicians. Nothing is more telling than Stossel’s tale of George McGovern, who tried to open a bed and breakfast only run afoul of the very regulations he helped implement.

It has always been easier to destroy than to create. Government needs to relearn this lesson.

Alec Baldwin recently got himself kicked off a plane for refusing to stop playing with this smart phone. He apologized to the passengers, but then went on Saturday Night Live to make fun of the crew. I’m afraid what respect I still had for him is gone.

Yes, we all get a little frustrated when we fly. Yes, there are sometimes air crew who take their position of authority too far. I don’t know if that was the case here, but the bottom line is that they have a job to do, and lots and lots of government oversight in how they do it. They don’t need some high-on-himself celebrity who makes more for one movie than most of them will earn in their lives to make their lives more difficult and belittle them on national TV.

Poor form, Mr. Baldwin. Deflate the ego a little and let the rest of us poor unwashed do our jobs, okay? If you’re going to fly on a plane with us normal people, try to behave like normal people, okay? We may not like the rules either, but we don’t take it out on the people who have no say in making them but are directly charged with enforcing them.

Unfortunately it’s all too common for people like you to equate celebrity with moral authority. Your money and celebrity gives you the right to tell the rest of us what to do. Sorry, I’m not buying it. Go commiserate with your rich and pompous Hollywood friends about the how the big bad airline pilot tried to tell you what to do. I’m sure they’ll stroke your ego for you and remind you of the virtues of chartered flights and private planes. Do us all a favor and listen to them.

Do we, as humans, need to be more rat-like? A recent study suggests so:

In repeated tests, rats freed another trapped rat in their cage, even when yummy chocolate served as a tempting distraction. Twenty-three of the 30 rats opened the trap by pushing in a door. The rats could have gobbled the chocolate before freeing their partners, but often didn’t, choosing to help and share the goodies.

Next time somone calls you a rat, consider it a compliment!

* * * * *

 First of all, isn’t it fairly obvious when people say “hot lava”, as in “I’d rather be boiled in hot lava than go out with you”? It’s like saying “I think I’ll go get a drink of wet water”. But that wouldn’t be our only misconception about lava. Oh no, my precious!

In just about any movie I’ve seen which involves lava, people, and people falling into lava, the people sink in the lava. Gollem splats into lava at the end of Lord of the Rings: Return of the King as if he’s fallen into a vat of pudding, and then procedes to sink. Here’s an article to explain to you why this wouldn’t happen.

The bottom line: Lava is really heavy and viscous. You are not. You will float. And Gollem would have hit that lava like falling onto pavement. He’d have been too dead to give panicked looks as he fails to sink but rather bursts into flame.

The article also alludes to another pet peeve I have from movies: People fighting, talking, and basically staying alive right next to lava. Lava is about 3-4 times hotter than your oven on full broil. Do you think you’d be able to survive for long sticking your head in your oven on broil? No, you’d burn your face and scorch your lungs. Anakin and Obi Wan should both have been crispy critters long before their epic fight above the lava was over.

Once again, for all you Hollywood types: Lava is much thicker and much much hotter than warm pumpkin pudding! 

* * * * *

In Isaac Asimov’s book “Prelude to Foundation”, he presents through his character “Hari Seldon” the “Hand-on-thigh Theory”: That which we uncover we invite to be touched. This comes about from an encounter between Hari and a female associate on the beach. She is wearing a swimsuit when he comes to sit on the arm of her chair. He places his hand on her thigh for balance, and when she calls it to his attention he can’t explain easily why he feels it is okay for him to touch her so familiarly.

Later on they meet up again in a formal setting, both well-dressed for the occasion. She then invites him to put his hand on her thigh again, and he realizes he would no longer feels comfortable doing so in that situation. His conclusion is that whatever we uncover we invite to be touched.

Now there is some scientific support for that notion, though perhaps not directly:

After looking at these pictures and reading a brief description of Erin/Aaron, subjects were asked to evaluate the mental capacities of the person. They answered six questions, which took the form, “Compared to the average person, how much is Erin capable of X.” The X was filled in by various agency-related capacities, such as “self-control,”“acting morally,” and “planning” and a slew of experience-related capacities, such as “experiencing pleasure,” “experiencing hunger,” and “experiencing desire.” Participants answered these six questions on a 5-point scale from 1 (Much Less Capable) to 5 (Much More Capable).

It turns out that a glimpse of flesh strongly influences our perception of Erin/Aaron. When the pictures only showed a face, they had lots of agency. But when we saw their torso, we suddenly imagined them as obsessed with experience. Instead of being good at self-control, they were suddenly extremely sensitive to hunger and desire. Same person, same facial expression, same brief description – but a hint of body changed everything.

It may not be fair, but it’s evidently true that if you dress revealingly others will look at you as more pleasure-oriented and less intelligent. The article doesn’t indicate whether there is any difference between men and women in this reponse, either, so one can infer that both genders think similarly. Male of female, if you want to be perceived as intelligent keep your clothes on.

In other, unrelated news, Lindsay Lohan’s Playboy cover has been leaked. I’m sure she’s looking very intelligent.