Okay, my entire thesis on 21st Century Political Nuttitude went out the window yesterday. Sports blogs favored the Bears and Jets, but the Packers and Steelers won. (More)

As noted by Ms. Crissie on Sunday, I wrote a clever web bot for my Blewberry to make my picks for the BPI campus NFL pool. But Ms. Crissie implied that wasn’t really research on my 21st Century Political Nuttitude thesis. It was. And if I get billed for all those Gaggle-Giggle-Google minutes – that’s what 3G really stands for – I’m going to get very cranky. That should be covered by my research budget.

I guess I should say I’ll get very crankier, because I’m already cranky. My web bot worked perfectly. It reviewed every article and every comment on every football-related blog over the past week. It clearly showed that more comments were posted favoring the Chicago Bears and New York Jets. So I chose those teams for the campus pool … and both teams lost.

I’m not so cranky about losing the campus pool. I’d have had to share the pool with Ms. Scarlet, Chef, and Ms. Crissie, all of whom picked the Packers and Steelers. If I’m going to get in a pool that crowded, I may as well dive on in with the resident faculty. The hot tub faculty lounge is near my tree, after all. Near enough that I have to keep the baby in his own branch during their weekly game where the underwear goes flying planning conferences. Near enough that Mrs. Squirrel and I sometimes have to toss wayward thongs thoughts back down at them. On the plus side, the resident faculty said I can use the hot tub faculty lounge to wash off after I read the news. So that’s nice, at least.

No, I’m cranky because the Bears’ and Jets’ losses yesterday totally disproved one of the core theories in my 21st Century Political Nuttitude thesis: that you could predict events based on the quantity and content of blog comments.

It wasn’t even really “my” theory. A whole lot of humans seem to believe that. I can’t see any other reason to go around posting the same arguments on one blog site after another. They even call it “online activism.” The principle seems to be that if 10,000 people post a comment criticizing this official or that policy – or 100 people post 100 comments each – and there are fewer opposing comments … that should be enough to decide the issue.

There was ample evidence that humans believe this theory, and humans insist you are smarter than squirrels. So I decided to make it a central point in my thesis. Oops.

Apparently the quantity and content of Internet blog comments had nothing to do with the outcome of yesterday’s games. Those contests were decided on the field, by players and coaches. That makes me very nervous about my thesis. What if the same thing is true in politics? What if political events actually turn on the actions of elected officials, candidates, and activists doing things on the field, i.e.: offline?

My thesis is ruined. Now I’ll have to research offline activity instead of just reading blogs. I may even have to do some offline activity myself, if I want to be politically relevant. How will I squeeze that into my schedule? Will I still have time to make sure I post the last comment in every online argument? And what will I do with all those sock puppets now?


Maybe I should go get lunch before I get even crankier….