I’m a little behind the curve on this, but I do have to weigh in.
 

Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas really does not understand science. Not scientific method, not scientific theories or laws, none of it. Which is why he submitted a bill draft titled the “High Quality Research Act” which would in effect add a politician into scientific studies.
 
The bill says that any research done using federal funds (which is the majority of research done in the United States) must have its results and finding approved by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives. If the findings are not agreed to, the research is taken from the researchers and disposed of by Congress as it sees fit.
 
(Addicting Info)

We can talk about how many people are frightened of new knowledge that might challenge their emotionally pleasing, if unlearned, belief systems. Or about honest, if entirely irrational, suspicion of what they perceive to be deep, dark forces at work, targeting much that they hold dear. But I’m done politely avoiding the fundamental issue, here. The bottom line with these anti-science righties is that they’re just plain stupid. And it’s their own fault. The world is full of resources from which they could learn, but they choose not to use them. They’re idiots, and absolutely unfit to govern. We don’t put little kids in charge, and in many respects, “childlike” is where too many purportedly adult heads are at.
 

Smith’s bill could well get through the House, but it won’t go any further. The effects of sequestration cuts are far more serious.
 

And now that the sequester has taken effect, some of those scenarios are beginning to play out. As the Huffington Post reports, medical researchers are already scaling back their projects in areas that could have big implications for public health. At Temple University, one team of researchers hoped to develop a more effective method of repairing the heart to help Americans better recover from heart attacks — but now, thanks to the recent budget cuts, they may have to lay off staff or test a fewer number of potential therapies. Virginia Tech researchers who are studying depression, substance abuse, and post traumatic stress disorder have already been dealt a $640,000 blow to their grant funding, and are bracing for another $1 million in cuts. At the University of Kansas, the funds for behavioral research to help educators learn how to work with children with disabilities are in limbo.
 
(Think Progress)

Context is so important in making a choice. Context can even fool us. In the central circle illusion, both of the two central circles are the same size. The punchline is if you want to be noticed, surround yourself with smaller circles.

Dan Ariely, in the book “Predictably Irrational” describes an experiment of picking attractive people from pictures. First, Dan had students pick pictures of people that were judged equally attractive. Then, he slipped in some duplicate pictures that had been altered to look a little less attractive. The better duplicate pictures were picked 75% of the time over pictures that had no duplicates. Dan concludes that this means that you should avoid going to dating bars with a friend who is similar but slightly more attractive.

 

Providing decoys is used in other contexts. On menus, providing a very expensive item will sell more of the current higher priced items. In real estate, showing two similar houses makes one of those two houses more likely to be picked. Breadmakers were not selling until a second brand of breadmakers was offered. Sales people don’t ask if you want something, they ask which would you like the best.

Based on the decoy effect, I would expect Ranked Choice Voting to give similar candidates a better chance of winning. In addition, two similar candidates would expand the voter pool of people interested in that kind of candidate. In ranked choice voting, similar candidates should help each other when the votes roll to the next choice. Two candidates speaking similarly provide more chances to persuade on the importance of their positions. This is a huge change from highest-vote contest races where less than majority could win. In those races, similar candidates hurt each other because the vote was split. The practical test case of ranked choice voting is the Minneapolis Mayor’s race this year. The question is who would you consider to be similar candidates in the Minneapolis Mayor’s race?

Interestingly, Democrats have benefited from debates and internal races while Republicans are generally blaming debates and internal races for losses. I think that anytime that Republicans are not in carefully crafted marketing campaigns, they are in trouble, because normal voters do not like what Republicans really represent. In the Republican case, the decoy effect is a minor effect that does not overwhelm the dislike of the general product.

One of the ways, we get more turnout in local races, is to bring in high status political figures. However, are we then making our local political candidates look less valuable by the contrast? Should we be careful to pick candidate minders who do not outshine the candidate?

Another context idea is anchoring, where first experience sets the expectation of general market. Dan Ariely, in the book “Predictably Irrational” describes his experiment that showed that even random numbers written before a new experience will set a pattern of price expectations. Dan contends that the excessive CEO pay came when we required CEO pay to be published. Each newest highest CEO salary became the anchor for the next CEO salary negotiation to beat. I think political fundraising is the best place where the idea of anchoring could be used.

Anchoring sets expectations. The internet has been free with content so selling content is not supported. The internet anchor is free content.  However look at the Mark Twain’s story of Tom Sawyer, who enticed kids to pay for doing the chore of painting the fence.  Mark Twain said the story know that work is what you have to do and play is what you don’t have to do. Starbucks also jumped the anchoring pitfall of “Dunkin Donuts” by decorating the store more as boutique, so one was anchored by boutique expectations. Anchors can be carefully chosen.

How would anchoring set expectations for a candidate? Previous candidates have set anchors. The party sets anchors. However could one use the Starbuck experience to say one is maverick or different class of candidate? I think that this is what people try to do by invoking Wellstone and using green buses.

By using branding like three piece suits, we try to choose the group that we are anchored to. Senator Jon Tester wore overalls to brand himself as populist. At a time, when congress and politicians are low in esteem, using outside branding may help with the first election. The trap is what Senator Tester faced in the second election, can one live up to the expectations?

Branding is not lying, it is just picking out the important parts of mission, character, values, issues and platform that a candidate represents. If you don’t intentionally do it, then the opposition or someone else will. It is human nature to impose a pattern on anything we seek to understand.

Republicans would like to brand Democrats with angry if they can get away with it. To a great degree, Republicans were successful in branding Al Frankin and Mike Hatch as angry. What if Mike Hatch had been branded a “fearless bulldog fighter for people”? Then everything the Republicans did with “angry” would fed into a winning brand for Mike Hatch. Al Frankin was somewhat protected by already being branded a comedian.

I think the “angry” branding is very intentional because there is a similar brand of courageous leader who speaks the truth that voters want. Voters like a forceful speaker with conviction. That is a strength of President Obama.

Notice how Republicans tried to mess with the brand of Obama. While Obama is a Christian, Republicans tried to make him Muslim. While Obama speaks well, Republicans tried to twist that into a cult figure. The birth certificate is a code for a racism messaging of  “not one of us”. The Obama team took over the messaging on “Obamacare” with bumper stickers of ” I (heart) Obamacare”.

Pick the branding with care. Branding is a vulnerability, especially a false branding. If you brand a candidate as highly ethical, then one sticky case of an affair or one case of pot smoking will double the reputation harm. Frequently, sheriff candidates are branded as cowboys, which is a dangerous branding because it is also invokes the image of out-of-control shooting.

When I pick a brand I look for what naturally stands out. One candidate was a veteran and his answers frequently included some story from a military experience. A policy wonk should be branded as the person who will know the important details that make government truly work. The opponent should be branded as the kid who never did his homework. Again, the policy wonk should be a true representation because the campaign has now doubled down on policy mistakes. In the Jim Carlson for Senate campaign, we picked up on Jim’s engineering focus that debunked statements to do a series of “Mythbuster” lit drops. Voters want a candidate that debunks the myths of politics.

In every race, especially the local races ask the important questions:

• Anchor: What sets the expectations for my candidate? Can I set a different set of expectations?
• Decoy: Is there a similar candidate to my candidate who make my candidate shine in contrast? Or do we choose our branding to take advantage of weaker candidate or avoid a stronger candidate?
• Branding: How do we portray our candidate in a positive way that voters and the media immediately understand and like?

Marketing is a tool of understanding how the human brain makes decisions. We can make marketing work for the good guys.

Rep. Ryan Winkler (DFL-St. Louis Park) introduced a bill today that would ban corporations from making political donations in Minnesota. This is a response to the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that corporations are people and that they have First Amendment protections. Since money equals speech in the United States, they are more free than the rest of us.

Currently, the bill lists Representatives Jerry Newton (DFL-Coon Rapids), Leon Lillie (DFL-North St. Paul), Zach Dorholt (DFL-St. Cloud) and Joe Atkins (DFL-Inver Grove Heights) as co-authors.

Corporations would not be allowed to make independent political expenditures. This would mean fund a Super PAC or anything that would advocate for or against any candidate or ballot measure.

This bill does not affect lobbying.

Section 1. [302A.162] POWERS NOT POSSESSED.
Subdivision 1. Political campaign contributions.

(a) No corporation, as defined in section 302A.011, shall have the power to make a contribution or offer or agree to make a contribution, directly or indirectly, of any money; property; free service of its officers, employees, or members; or thing of monetary value to a major political party, organization, committee, or individual to promote or defeat the candidacy of an individual for nomination, election, or appointment to a political office.

(b) For purposes of this section, “contribution” includes an expenditure to promote or defeat the election or nomination of a candidate to a political office that is made with the authorization or expressed or implied consent of, or in cooperation or in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or committee established to support or oppose a candidate.

(c) Nothing in this section limits a corporation’s ability to lobby, to the extent otherwise permitted by law.

Subd. 2. Independent expenditures. No corporation, as defined in section 302A.011, shall have the power to make any expenditure or offer or agree to make an expenditure to promote or defeat the candidacy of an individual for nomination, election, or appointment to a political office. This includes independent expenditures as defined in section 10A.01, subdivision 18.

The current edition of Democratic Visions features this 15 minute discussion with History Professor Doug Rossinow about the future of progressive politics in the Minnesota Legislature.  Dr. Rossinow teaches at Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul and has authored many books and journal articles on progressive political movements.

Here is the link to the Rossinow video on our YouTube Channel – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

I produce Democratic Visions with the help of other volunteers through DFL Senate District 48, Eden Prairie and Minnetonka.  

I am a Public Health Grad student and I just finished reading Gene Griessman’s “Lincoln and Obama.” I was surprised to learn the depth of the parallels in these two Presidents’ lives.  Both acquired the presidency during struggling economic times and war.  Both were Washington outsiders and underdogs within their own party.  Griessman paints a detailed picture of Obama as a man who not only utilizes Lincoln as a guiding example, but as a man whose experiences and persona are so similar to our great 16th, it is a wonder I never realized it before.

I strongly encourage you to read this book.  I feel I learned a great deal about our current president.  With the election process in full swing, I feel that it gave me an even greater insight into the man I plan on voting for next month.

The classification of our standard systems implies that the most persuadable goes in straight line from Strong Democrat to Leaning Democrat to Independent to Leaning Republican to Strong Republican when actually the most persuadable are those listed as strong. Strong is frequently given to those who answer surveys, those who will engage in the political discussion. Here is the point, the “lean” is frequently given to people who simply do not want to talk about politics. These Lean Republican people may vote more solidly Republican than the rated Strong Republicans. The point is that we don’t know how leaners really vote. I believe the strongs are the most engaged and the most persuadable!

Width="460"/>

So what measure would be better? The measure that I would look for is “people who ever cross-voted”. Notice that in this recent poll from Public Policy show that 25% of self-identified Republicans as well as 61% of self-identified Independent/Other are supporting Klobuchar. How many Democrats could win with support from 25% of self-identified Republicans as well as 61% of self-identified Independent/Other?

Width="460"/>

Maybe we ought to track how often people cross-vote instead of asking how strongly they feel about certain policies.

When a test of personal expectations happens, we err on the side of hope. The more we hope, the more we try to succeed, therefore hope can act like a self-fulfilling expectation. Optimism makes you try harder. People who are optimistic always feel better in both bad results and good results. Optimism reduces stress and results in better health. So this optimism bias is a very good characteristic to have for most life experiences.

Personal optimism can be dangerous. For example:

Fatality investigations for fire-fighters often include “We didn’t think the fire was going to that” even when all of the available information was there to make safe decisions. -Fire & Training Captain, DSEDFPD

It is possible to have both the benefits of optimism and the benefits of realistic planning through knowledge and training. Becoming aware of the optimism bias does not shatter the illusion and therefore lose the benefits. Being aware of optimism means that one can plan for the building in the safety factors that protect us from the negative effects of the optimism factor. For example, one is taught in budgeting to get the best estimate and then double it. This rule works in reality. So we can both keep the advantages of the optimistic bias and protect from the negative effects through knowledge and training.  
Based on the studies of Tali Sharot, one learns about 40% more from good news on personal level than bad news. The effect is more neutral when applied to what will happen to someone else. So if possible deliver news as personal good news.

Yet sometimes we have to deliver bad news.

Yet what if we delivered bad news with a good news frame, like here is the bad news but we have a solution. One of my favorite managers, Ramsey County Sheriff Matt Bostrom, has a rule that people deliver problems with a proposed solution. Obviously, not every solution proposed is a good one. Yet look at what delivering a possible solution does to the acceptance of bad news. Suddenly one is considering the solution presented and looking for better solutions. When one is put into the frame of solution, then one is not rejecting the news just because it is bad news. So in politics, deliver bad news problems with a proposed solution. Even though recycling did not practically work to stop environmental damage, it probably did more for people to accept environmental damage than any other action. Similarly the long-lived light bulbs helped the acceptance of peak oil. So delivering bad news with a simple solution that may help but will not totally solve the solution is very effective in ensuring that people accept bad news.

What if we have deliver bad news about a candidate or an organization? If we have a choice should we blame inside factors or outside factors? Surprisingly, the answer from studies is that blaming internal factors is best.

If you made a mistake, an error in judgement, or a bad decision, you should admit the mistake, immediately followed by an action plan demonstrating that you can take control of the situation and rectify it. Through these actions, you’ll ultimately put  yourself in a position of greater influence by being perceived as not only capable, but also honest.

(From the book, “Yes, 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive” by Robert B. Cialdini, pages 122-123)

The point in the book is that you can take even an obvious outside factor like a tornado, and respond to it like its under your control. If you say that we could have been better prepared then people believe in you and your capability to handle the same situation the next time.

When a scare happens, we err on the side of caution.

To some extent, our unreasonable fear helped us to better survive. Those who ran first survived.

Our fight or flight response is designed to protect us from the proverbial saber tooth tigers that once lurked in the woods and fields around us, threatening our physical survival. At times when our actual physical survival is threatened, there is no greater response to have on our side. When activated, the fight or flight response causes a surge of adrenaline and other stress hormones to pump through our body. This surge is the force responsible for mothers lifting cars off their trapped children and for firemen heroically running into blazing houses to save endangered victims. The surge of adrenaline imbues us with heroism and courage at times when we are called upon to protect and defend the lives and values we cherish.

(Mind Body Education Center)

We are more likely to fear things that are unreasonable to fear. If one 9/11 attack happened once a year, then the odds would still be 1 in a 100,000. Yet your odds of falling off a ladder to your death is 1 in 218. Yet where do we spend money, checking people’s shoes at airports or purchasing better ladders? The lesson here is that we buy stupid costly solutions when we get scared, even when it makes no logical sense.

The practical side of our bias to unreasonable fears is how to tell scary bad news. When Conservatives tell scary news, it sounds like a horror film. When progressives tell scary news, notice how factual and calm that we tend to be. What if we told climate change in the horror story tale that conservatives use and then followed up with a personal way to successfully survive it, like install a solar panel.

Basically, humans are wired in ways that betrays good sound logic and reasoning. I think if we write our political literature and craft our political messaging in ways that better fits with our biases, then we will win easier. Clearly by the illogic that Republicans have already sold, they are already masters at using biases.  

Bill’s earlier diary http://www.mnprogressiveprojec…
Michele Bachmann: redistricting got me thinking about why I didn’t really care about his premise. It was not that I didn’t basically agree. But something just didn’t make it feel all that troubling.

Then it hit me. I am optimist about the future for liberal policies. It is a long and difficult road ahead but we are turning the corner and are or will be headed in the right direction soon. I along with many was deceived about how twisty that road actually was but I now see the indications of a straighter road ahead.
Watching Mrs. Allan Greenspan trying desperately not to tear up her pink ribbon and failing brought it all home. The IMF is backing off of austerity, the housing settlement is still bad but not quite as bad as it could have been, Union membership is up, Al Franken has a great +/-, Occupy changed the entire conversation everywhere you look there are incredibly positive signs of a real realignment beginning. Just beginning mayhaps but still.

The conservative movement is at a dead end and they are feeling it. They may not realise it or knowledge it. The overreach we have experienced is not the confident movement of the inevitable, rather it is the bravado of the defeated. Reality has caught up with them and they feel it.  

Progressives typically stack up facts like that is going to persuade anyone. Emotional comfort is far more important than reality, as we know from all the climate change deniers. Truly we, humans, are the frogs in boiling water believing what we want to believe.  As progressives, we could become the masters of emotional persuasion and emotional leadership. And as progressives, we could also admit that we too are moved emotionally.

Here is the good news: one leader can make a difference. 50 to 70% of the emotional climate of any organization is driven by the leader. That emotional climate is shown in studies to determine 20 to 30% of the performance of a business organization. I would say that emotional climate is even more important in campaign organizations. Below the fold, I explore the political applications of the book, Primal Leadership, by Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee. I would rate this book in the top ten books about leadership.
Vision – authentic conversations and experiences about what really matters in life

I find it humorous that the fake-positive world of business has admitted that authentic conversations about what really matters in life is the essential part of emotional leadership, called the FISH! philosophy. Because the morals of business leadership are seen as greed, power and control, the FISH! philosophy is seen as a “smile as you lose” philosophy. However if a leader is a moral, generous, and compassionate person then suddenly it is possible to actual do authentic conversations about what really matters in life and have a very positive emotional climate.

In Goleman’s book, Monica Sharma sent all of the 400 employees of UNICEF to work in the village immunization clinics for a short period. Everyone came to see how their jobs, even routine tasks, were essential to saving the life of a child. This is an example of what Goleman describes as a resonant group:

“In any resonant human group, people find meaning in their connection and their attunement with one another. In the best organizations, people share a vision of who they are collectively, and they share a special chemistry. They have the feeling of a good fit, of understanding and being understood, and a sense of well being in the presence of others. “

The visionary leadership is what we always want in politics. I describe our DFL visions as “working for the common good” and putting “people first”. Governor Dayton said “Minnesota Forward”. Representative Ellison says “Everybody Counts, Everybody Matters.” And Republicans use their best marketing to hide who they really are and who they really vote for.  

Definition of Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence is first of all self awareness and self management. It is good drama to pretend to lose one’s temper at certain points, yet it is never good management to lose one’s temper for real. Previous Sheriff Fletcher was the political figure that was so crazy he threatened to finger-print question-cards at a public event. The leader should model all of the good characteristics.

Social intelligence is the ability to empathize and understand others. It is the ability to see the norms and character of a whole organization. A leader can change organization, resolve differences and build collaboration.

The studies on leadership show that the MBA does a great job of selecting for IQ, but not EQ (Emotional Intelligence). I think politics is a strong selector of EQ. Building coalitions and support across multiple groups is the essence of politics.

Toolbox of leadership styles

The best leader can use all leadership styles appropriately.

The worst leader is just a commanding pacesetter because it is just one direction communication. Yet all success requires some commanding and pacesetting leadership. As we progressives have found out, just visionary leadership is also quite empty as well.

Developing More Emotional Intelligence Skills

Let me introduce you to the CEO’s disease, which is no one gives a powerful leader any important feedback so the leader has an entirely unrealistic view of himself or herself, usually the opposite of everyone else’s view.  What people think they do and what they actually do is so different that there is no real good reliable self test for EQ. To counter this, CEOs use an independent company to get feedback from all contacts.

Training and developing emotional skills is difficult because one not only has to learn what to do as a intellectual exercise but also as a conditioned habit. So learning tends to be a honeymoon effect that fades away. To create sustained skill change, a leader has to develop many places to practice new skills including outside the leadership role. Sometimes involving others in the coaching and practicing is a way that change can become permanent.

In many ways, the brain acts more like a muscle when it comes to emotions. The brain is trained in emotions. The cause may be that emotional response is faster than logical thought and provides an evolutionary advantage. The problem is that an emotional response can become inappropriate as in PTSD. Political decision making based on fear is the stupidest decision making that we as humans ever make. Indeed, many words like communist, socialism, and 9/11 seem to cause a Pavlovian emotional response that precludes all rational thought. Obviously, learning and mastering the emotional aspects of how we make decisions is essential for politics.

***

Personal Note: After 30 years, I had done the coursework but not the masters paper for my MBA. Through negotiation, I was able to go back for one semester to finish. I am now a newly minted MBA. Amazingly, many practices taught to through the MBA program cross over to politics. This series of articles is exploring that relationship. Here are more articles in the series if you are interested.

How Capitalism Fails – The Commons

Book Review: Incognito – The Secret Lives of the Brain

Persuasion: Three Yes Answers

What If Success Was Servant Leadership Not Greed

Book Review: Now, Discover Your Strengths

I got a weird little story about my friend Blitz Krieger to bring to you today.

He’s had a crazy car problem, he has, and over the past few months he thought he had found a solution – in fact, he thought he had found the solution of his dreams – but in the end, he’s discovered that the things you dream about often don’t go according to plan.

The way it’s worked out for him so far, it’s been a lot of anticipation followed by a sudden wave of frustration, but I feel like he’s a lot better off having his particular problem with his car…because if he’d had cancer instead, he’d surely be dead by now.  

The community is always embarrassed by the drag queens because straight society says, “A faggot always dresses in drag, or he’s effeminate.” But you got to be who you are. Passing for straight is like a light-skinned woman or man passing for white. I refuse to pass. I couldn’t have passed, not in this lifetime.

–Sylvia Rivera, describing the founding of Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR), quoted in the book “Becoming Visible: An Illustrated History of Lesbian and Gay Life in Twentieth-Century America“

So here’s what happened to Blitz: he waited forever to buy his first car because he wanted, more than anything else in life, to drive his “perfect” car: a 1982 American Motors Eagle SX/4.

It’s a wild car: it was designed as a small hatchback…with a V-8 engine…and “switchable” 4WD…which allowed it to travel easily in snow in a way that virtually no other passenger car at the time could manage.

So he waited all this time, and two years ago, in California, he literally found a little old lady from Pasadena who sold him his “Dream Car”, which, ironically, was the same brown color as Al Bundy’s Dodge.

It drove great for about six months, but it’s been suffering from a strange malady that presents as a horrible grinding noise when he tries to start the car. He has no idea what to do – and standing in the way of a solution is an obsession that I find a bit strange:

He is absolutely determined that he is not going to go to just any mechanic.

Instead, Blitz told me that since it’s the first time the Dream Car needs to be repaired, he intends to go to a mechanic who has never worked on any car before his – and he says he wants to do this because he feels the experience of having the work done this way will make it more “special” for the both of them.

It took him almost a year to find someone, but when he did, it was truly perfect: he met a woman named Jenna Talia who wanted more than anything to be a mechanic.

She’d been studying through one of those “learn at home” programs, and, amazingly, she had an attitude similar to my friend Blitz’s: she knew about how to fix a car from what she’d read in a book, but she refused to actually repair one until she got the chance to work on her Dream Car – and even more amazingly, her Dream Car…was a 1982 American Motors Eagle SX/4.

They actually met on the bus (Blitz, naturally, refused to drive any other car except the Dream Car), and after a few months of knowing each other, Blitz proposed that Jenna might work on his car in his garage, and she agreed.

Fun Fact I Just Made Up: In a recent poll, 32% of voters thought the Iowa Caucuses were a country located near the former Soviet Georgia.

So we’re going out last Saturday night, and I get a call from Blitz asking if I could come by and pick ‘em both up there at his house, and I’m OK with that, because with two drinks in a night being a big evening for me I’m more or less a permanent designated driver.

I was wondering how it was going with the car, and what I saw was stunning: the upper half of the engine was sitting in the living room, entirely disassembled. There were rockers and rods and all kinds of stuff there, neatly arranged for easy reassembly, and it looked like they had really put a lot of effort into the thing, but it was clear that they just couldn’t get it quite figured out…which isn’t surprising, considering it was the first time for both of them.

And you could see, in just that first second, that the two of them were some kind of frustrated. But it gets worse: Blitz told me that this was her third “diagnosis”, and that, now that she was actually face-to-face with a real car, she seemed to be entirely confused about exactly what to do.

Apparently things had gone so bad that Jenna wouldn’t even leave his house at night to go home until she could get things figured out…and, from what he’s telling me, he’s ready to throw her out, buy a different car, and get that car fixed by a mechanic who’s been there and done that – a lot.

To put it another way, he’s ready to dump his virgin mechanic…for a slut.

Now here’s the really crazy part of the story: I’ve had a bit of experience with cars breaking down over time, and I knew what was wrong from the beginning, as many of you probably did, too: the starter was bad – and that’s located on the very bottom of the engine, not the top, which means everything they’d been doing was pretty much pointless.

But I couldn’t tell them that in the beginning…because, again, it would’ve just spoiled the experience…and I sure wasn’t gonna say “I told you so” now…so even though I could have offered them both useful advice about how ignorance ain’t bliss, they surely didn’t want to hear it.

So look, folks, we could have a lot more fun following out this comic premise, but there’s a bigger point: I don’t want a virgin mechanic, and surely not a virgin doctor – and they don’t even allow virgin pilots to carry passengers.

What is it about sex (and politics, for that matter) that makes people think they’ll be able to simply “get it” with no experience at all? What is it that makes them think that celebrating their own ignorance is the best way to show they’re ready to take on something that, frankly, requires a bit of trial…and error…before you really get it right?

I don’t know the answer, but the next time someone tells you how their ignorance makes them a lot smarter about something, do me a favor and think about Blitz and Jenna and the Dream Car – and the living room full of engine parts – and if that person’s running for office, run the other way. Quickly.

I’d appreciate it; so will you – and if I know Blitz, he will, too.