New Physics

A major  research institution has recently announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Governmentium".

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 minute amount  of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete, when  it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 4 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganisation 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 reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.   This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that  Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.  When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium - an element  which radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as
many peons but twice as many morons.

Posted under: Politics, Comedy
Posted on: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:06 PM
« Larry Summers Version 2.0 | Home | Fuck the royal family »
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: TByte on 4/27/2011 11:59 PM
    Gravatar
    Ha Ha. Government is stupid. Ha Ha.

    Reg:
    All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
  2. Posted by: TDOM on 4/30/2011 6:48 AM
    Gravatar
    While the discovery of governmentium may be relatively recent, its existence has been hypothesized for centuries. A pseudoscience has even been devoted to its study and has concluded that there are several taxonomies of governmentium that can be catalyzed into adminstratium depending upon the relationships between the neutrons and morons. I find it interesting, however, that you fail to mention that the most important findings of the study are the explosions that occur when two or more governmentium atoms collide. Hypothetically this could result in cold fusion wherein the atoms merge into one larger atom, but this has yet to be confirmed in laboratory experiments. What has been confirmed is that the two atoms typically implode releasing tremendous amounts of energy resulting in a permanent reduction in the number of peons allocated to each atom. The death of enough peons can create an unstable nucleus in one of the atoms to cause it to be absorbed by the other (usually the larger) atom.

    TDOM
  3. Posted by: Amfortas on 4/30/2011 1:52 PM
    Gravatar
    @TByte

    The ironic thing is that Rome collapsed because it's government became too big.
  4. Posted by: Mark on 5/2/2011 11:27 AM
    Gravatar
    @TByte. You perform the classic re-write in the mind. That is to assume that an argument against bigger government equals an argument for no government. Therefore your critique is a bit of a strawman. However, I'll try to examine the point. It seems to be suggesting that I am a societal ingrate, unwilling to grant the credit due to government, right?

    You can make that statement at any level of government. Perhaps this retort can be made to a person living in a communist country who criticises the government (that is, assuming he doesn't get hauled away to the gulag). However, by listing a good side only, you miss the bad. That is, a government that is too big can strip the individuality from the citizenry and produce a populace that cannot manage without that government.

    Also. The point in the Monty Python film is about a different culture assuming another culture, and bringing the benefits of that culture to the other culture. The romans brought those benefits because they were more advanced, but these things such as better medicine are not created by government. They are created by individuals in a society that is conducive to individual freedom and then utilised by government (like how the govt can help roll out better telecommunications but didn't create it, or how the government can help pool talent to make something like the moon landing happen where it wouldn't have necessarily occurred by private means without the governments help).

    Also, a government that supports a number of useful things is not what I'm talking about today when I criticise government, I'm normally referring to what I view as a bloated government that intrudes too much on personal liberty. The person who sent this me describes himself as a "socialist". Seriously. Indicating that even a large government person can get frustrated with the idiocy and incompetence that is blatant in the state.
  5. Posted by: TByte on 5/7/2011 7:43 AM
    Gravatar
    Amfortas, to claim that Rome collapsed because it's government became too big greatly over-simplifies the issue.
    The Roman Empire lasted over 1000 years, and its Eastern half of the Roman Empire, becoming the Byzantine Empire, survived nearly a thousand more until 1453. I don't see how you could refute the contrary argument that Rome would NOT have lasted so long or had so profound an influence on world history had it not had a strong central government.

    Mark, my critique is in no manner a straw man. It is disingenuous to accuse me of performing a "classic re-write" and assuming that an argument against big government is an argument for no government when, in fact, nowhere in your (admittedly joking) post was there anything favorable towards government at all. There was nothing to mitigate the knee-jerk opinion that "government equals bad". Sorry, but I've grown weary of dealing with simple-minded individuals who actually believe such nonsense. The sort of individuals who would find your post humorous.

    And that, really was the crux of my critique. Hell, I'll forgive just about any opinions when they are presented in a witty, humorous, and fresh manner. I don't always agree with the opinions favored by the creators of South Park, but the show is wickedly funny in the true tradition of American Satire. No, the cardinal sin of your post was not that it over-simplified a complex issue. Not that it was incorrect. It was that is wasn't even funny. "Government is stupid" is the satirical equivalent of slipping on a vaudevillian banana peel. The irony here is that people who would find your post most funny are the same ones who do argue for no government. Let's not encourage them more than necessary, OK? No doubt your post has been copied, pasted, and is currently being forwarded around various Tea Party mailing lists as we speak, and will surely be printed more than once to take its place on refrigerators or cubicle walls beside fading Family Circus cartoons.
  6. Posted by: Mark on 5/8/2011 11:31 PM
    Gravatar
    @TByte: Jokes and comics are always going to be simplistic when you judge at them in terms of being a debate. I've read comics that I felt were very unfair to one side of the argument and started to dismantle them in my mind but I then thought "what's the point". Some comics, such as Jack Chick tracts, are trying to make a point so they're fair game. However, for things such as this, there's no point.

    I would rather you use your time to criticise something that I've actually written.
  7. Posted by: TByte on 5/9/2011 5:07 AM
    Gravatar
    Had I a bone to pick with anything you had posted up 'till then, I would have!
  8. Posted by: Mark on 5/9/2011 11:58 AM
    Gravatar
    Had I a bone to pick with anything you had posted up 'till then, I would have!


    That's good, at least. :)

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)

Please add 7 and 3 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”