Next Gen NASA?

This is the kick in the butt that NASA needs! Kudos to the Co-op students that made it happen. Now if only the organization as a whole could embrace this mix of openness and ability to reach out to the public.

Apollo Guys



I.S.S. Baby



Keep it coming!

The Heaviest Element Known to Science

I did not create this but it's worth re-posting... I'd credit it to William DeBuvitz, as it's a take off on his work

Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

Less Education = Ignorant Voters

In 2004 Congressman Brian Baird confirmed what the public always suspected, that members of congress do not actually have the time to read the bills they are voting on. With this in mind, one must wonder if people ever read the referendums that they vote for or have much in-depth knowledge on issues and people they champion and support. In fact, Scott Althaus in his article “Information Effects in Collective Preferences,” states that “Some ill-informed people may believe a policy is the “correct” solution without knowing whether it is consistent with their predispositions or whether it is the best way to achieve a given end.” This only continues to bolster the politically incorrect thought, that many people have, but are reluctant to state, that individuals who are less educated are more likely to vote with a degree of ignorance.

(One wonders how this was consistent with anyone's predispositions)

Jerit, Barabas & Bolsen argue and demonstrate in “Citizens, Knowledge, and the Information Environment,” that increased overall media attention to an issue will increase the average amount of knowledge of it, but does this increase lead ability of an individual to process to the knowledge to make a wise decision? While an increase in news coverage may allow for general knowledge of the facts of the issue, it would not improve the ability of the voter to weight the facts to make a decision to benefit their interests. In addition, should the media only cover some aspects of the issue, it could in fact bias decision making rather than assist it.

Jerit et al, argue that less educated individuals are less able to digest information in news papers as compared with television media. Jerit et al cites Neuman, Just and Crigler, stating, “Newspapers stories are dominated by facts as opposed to explanatory devices such as framing or analysis.” This implies that less educated individuals are more influenced by news sources that frame issues and provide analysis of issues, thus introducing bias, and some might argue attempting to sway decision making on the issue. Therefore not only are less educated individuals less informed, but they tend to accept a higher degree of bias in their information, which likely goes un-noticed.

While some studies argue that information shortcuts, such as party voting or cue taking from trusted elites, help alleviate problems stemming from a lack of information, Althaus points out “there is surprisingly little evidence that large numbers of people do use these strategies effectively, regularly, and across a wide range of situations and issues.” Even if individuals were able to successfully utilize these information shortcuts, they often do not provide unbiased knowledge from which an individual can come to their own conclusion on what choices best benefit themselves.

Althaus brings up the discussion of deliberative polling, and explains that providing information still does not bring decision making up to par due to differences in cognitive styles and information processing abilities. While Althaus provides a mathematical solution to better analyze the opinions of the ill-informed as his formulations allow for the enhancement of the uninformed voice based on the assume that people who share similar characteristics share similar opinions, he is not able to correct for the ignorant opinion that was against the best interest of the person who cast it.

This leads to a conclusion that the decisions of less educated individuals are more likely to be influenced by media and elite bias, especially the bias of television media. Thus these same individuals are going to display a greater degree of ignorance in their voting behavior.

Act on Public Opinion? Yeah Right!

It is clear that there are few people who understand the complexities of politics and policy making, but the number of voters show how many people have an opinion and want to be heard. Measuring public opinion has issues, be it of bias based on the questions being asked or framing on how the opinions are collected. Once past this set of problems, there is a much larger question that needs to be resolved: do people know what they want, and if they do, do they understand the trade offs that may need to be made?

Zaller and Feldman point out in “A Simple Theory to the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences,” that “the same person can answer the same question at different time as if it involved different topics.” This shows that people may not even understand the questions they are being asked. Zaller and Feldman contend that if a person does understand the question, their answer may differ based on interpretation of the question on a given day, which could be influenced by numerous factors. This would intern lead to variations on public opinion regardless if such variation actually exists. While they point out that this is often statistically resolved over multiple recurrences, it could actually be endemic of a larger flaw within a person’s belief system. In fact, it could mean that the public just does not know what they want, and that is why the given answer changes depending on the situation at hand. Either situation could lead to a misinterpretation of the public will as public opinion is gathered and acted on at discrete points in time.

The pubic might also just not be able to respond intelligently to policy issues.Converse in “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” surveyed individuals for an understanding of Eisenhower’s defeat of Truman, and showed that 22% of individuals’ “evaluations of the political scene had no shred of policy significance whatever.” If one fifth of the population votes based on non policy related aspects (i.e. physical appearance, name recognition, or similar hobbies) or only perceived tangential aspects (i.e. religion, race, work history) then are the opinions of the public relevant? Obviously they would be to the politician who wants to be elected, but what about to the politician who wants to implement sound policy? While yes, as Converse argues, such members of the public they might still care about particular issues, would this segment of the public be able to convey their attitudes and beliefs to a policy maker?

Simple logic suggests that people should understand tradeoffs and concessions in negation and thus with what they would express to their elected officials. Converse states that “one cannot believe that the government expenditures should be increased, that government revenues should be decreased, and that more favorable balance of the budget should be achieved all at the same time.” However, it is clear from V.O. Key’s Public Opinion and American Democracy that people can have contradictory attitudes despite its seemingly irrational character. Key states, “A simple calculus of self-interest makes simultaneous support of tax reduction and expansion of social welfare activities entirely consistent.” His research shows that people are obviously unable to understand the problems with acting on such general opinion, and this probably leads to why even when politicians try to do what they think the public wants, it still does not work out quite right.

This lead to a two pronged retrospective regarding the value of public opinion data: 1) the public may or may not know what they really want, and thus the public opinion data is not actionable 2) regardless if the public knows what they want; public opinion research may or may not properly reflect the general will and thus acting on it may not be in the public’s interest.

Getting Louder with Steven Crowder: The PPE

If you're below the age of 22 and have a pulse, chances are that you've been approached by someone "encouraging you to vote" these past couple of weeks.

Ah yes. It started with P Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign back in 2004, supported by politically savvy/credible celebrities such as Drew Barrymore, Jake Gyllenhaal and my personal favorite, Cameron Diaz. Who can forget her teary-eyed plea on Oprah "You guys you have to vote!! If you don't, it's like saying you want rape to be legal!". However, she was not to be outdone, by Barrymore's dramatic monologue (on that same program) "I remember one day just crying, realizing... That I didn't know any of this stuff".

Was she referring to the political temperatures of the current election, the policies of each candidate or perhaps her own principles on which to base her vote? Knowing Hollywood; It was probably all of the above.

Still, it is important to make the observation that THESE aforementioned people (and like-minded folk) are at the forefront of the "Rock The Vote" campaigns.

As a general rule, they aren't educated, principled, nor particularly politically involved and are hoping that you are of the same cloth. As a matter of fact, they PREY upon it.

Let's face facts, if you aren't truly aware of the political situation going on in the country, it's that much easier for these people to convince you that they are in fact "non-bias".

Let me give you an example. I was returning down "Beverley" in Hollywood two days ago, from my training in the park, when a... Let's call her a "personal political encourager" (we'll go with PPE from her on out) approached me. Seeing that I was wearing a UT T-shirt, she commented on the fact that she was raised in Texas. We got to chatting for a little bit and it didn't take long for her to finally blurt out "Yeah, lots of Republicans there. This is a Republican area here too. Fuck'em".

I knew immediately, that this was going to get good. One glance at this dame told me that this punk rocker had no clue as to what values to uphold, had it not been a worldly set deemed appropriate by her (current) favorite screamo band.

We got to talking. She admitted that she was "like... very emotional person" and that she voted accordingly. Of course, when pinned down and asked to give me ONE reason to vote Obama, she was unable to provide.

Midway through the discussion she decided to cut it off. "Well my job is not to endorse any candidate. We just want to set up more "Rock the Vote" booths (or some campaign of the same genre, who's name escapes me) in the swing states. I'm not encouraging anyone either way."

I paused, and wiped the sweat from my brow.

"Don't lie."

"... What?" she asked offendedly.

"And don't act offended. Look at what you're wearing", pointing to her (and her colleagues) Bright blue T-shirt with the words "Democrat 08" written across the chest.

"Oh well I just wear this because it's my job. they pay me too"

"By whom..." I asked.

She responded hesitantly "by the Democratic party..." Immediately realizing that she'd been trapped she stammered, "No. But.... Like that's just my job, I'm not encouraging either way..."

"Thanks," I cute her off. "You're done."

... And I walked away.

The truth is, this whole "Rock the Vote" business is a last ditch attempt by leftists to snag the uneducated voter.

Let's be honest. Conservatives aren't worried about their voters staying home... Because the Conservative base has generally always been an educated populous, putting their principles and their corresponding vote as a high priority in their lives.

Not so, with modern day Liberals. They want the vote, of people who don't really care, nor have the desire to educate themselves on the political process, candidates nor their policies. They want people who sign up on the street to vote, and through subtle nudging of the "neutral" PPE's, finally say...

" Alright. I'll vote Obama."

Make no mistake. The underlying message to "Get out and Vote" being pumped through the brains of today's youth, is truly a message of "Get out and Vote Obama you Mindless Sacks of Crap".

Personally, it sickens me.

By the way... What ever happened to P Diddy's "Vote or Die" campaign?

... Oh that's right. It's now been switched to "Obama or Die".

How's that for "telling"?

*Getting Louder with Steven Crowder is a regular segment on Steinberg For Congress

Conspiring with Brandon Boucher: Solve Your Economic Crisis

Well its serious now isn't it. I would give the country a solid 7 months and a week or two in either direction until we start clamoring for the glorious comeback of the breadline.

And, NO this isn't too much too ask. Yes this can all be yours....

Well I'm glad you asked. To make your small contribution just shuffle on up to your local bank. to make a special inquiry about your checking account. No you want be starting an IRA or checking up on your mutual funds... simply and decidedly show them you possess a scholarly amount of foresight and cash out every red cent so you can take it home and hide it in your mattress. Because if enough people play, the early bird really does get the worm. Eventually everyone will have to admit that it IS NOT OK for the banks to lend out a gillion times more than what they actually have to any dumb cracker who will smile a bucktooth grin and take it from them.

Beautifully oblivious to the ramifications implied and derived from a 68.236459% interest rate the heathens stand in line to sign there future self's solvency over to a usury imaginary person without a conscience or soul. So sir when you are late in line and simply inquire after your funds you may be remiss to realize that the bank lent out exactly the amount of your funds to 20 gazillion people because they were really poor and because they had no money, obviously the bank understood that it was only appropriate to charge them more by far than the wealthy people who borrow money and don't even need it, because this would make it easier for the poor folk to pay it back you see.

But regardless of the method.... you asked for your money last and they cant give it back because twenty gazillion people have your money and they cant pay it back.

Get your money. Turn it into gold or dilithium crystals. Buy a shovel. Join a fight club.

Profit.

* Conspiring with Brandon Boucher is an irregular feature on Steinberg For Congress