Violin Acoustic Design

Lesson #1:  A thing often looks easy and simple to form an opinion on if you only know a little about it.  The more you learn, the more you realize just how ignorant you were--and are.

I occasionally play stringed instruments such as the fiddle, as an amateur.  The other day in a conversation, I wondered aloud to what extent the design of a violin was based on stylistic considerations versus actual influence on sound output and quality.  I supposed that much of the "ornate" styling and visual beauty had little to do with its actual performance as an instrument.  Just an acoustic enclosure with some strings stretched across it, right?  Turns out, I was almost completely wrong.

Some internet sources like this, this and others make some interesting points about the acoustics of a violin and their relationship to its design.  While the articles give a more in-depth look, here is a brief summary that some of you might find intriguing:

1.  Unique Method of Producing Sound:  The continuous sound obtained by drawing a bow across a violin string is dependent on the stick-slip phenomena obtained between the tacky rosin-coated bow hairs and the string.  Producing a sound in this manner tends to result in an almost exactly harmonic spectrum, as opposed to plucking, and this puts power into the high harmonics and contributes to the richness, brightness and loudness of the violin's sound.  The ability to create a good, solid sound from the bow depends on the proper relationship between the pressure from the bow on the string, the speed of the bow, the distance it is located from the bridge, the tension in the bow hairs, the tackiness of the rosin that coats the bow hairs, and the weight, flexibility and tension of the string across which it is drawn. Some of these factors represent player technique while others are related to the design of the instrument--i.e., the strings, bow, rosin, etc.  A more technical explanation of the motion of the string when bowed can be presented in terms of Helmholtz motion, for anyone interested in a more physics-oriented description.  
   On the other hand, when the string of a musical instrument is plucked, the high harmonics fade away very quickly, leaving only the fundamental and some weak lower harmonics.  A violin can be bowed, plucked, bowed or hammered using the wooden side of the bow, not to mention a variety of different (normal) bowing patterns that introduce a great variety of sound textures and emotive responses.
   But this is only a part of the story of what gives a violin its sound.  The other part is its acoustics.  The acoustics of the assembled violin are fantastically complex, as they involve coupled oscillations from the strings to the bridge, top (and to a lesser extent bottom) plates, rib, and fingerboard.

2.  Size/Shape/Thickness/Material of Top Plate & Other Parts:  The violin resonances do not fall at the same frequency as the notes the player wishes to play, although the lowest resonant frequency falls in the neighborhood of the A string (440 cps).  The frequency spectrum coming out of the instrument is very different from that going in, i.e., from the strings themselves, and is acoustically rich.  The shape, thickness, size, and spatial geometry of the top plate results in a very complex set of vibration eigenmodes covering a range of frequencies.  This results in a harmonically-rich, complex waveform responsible for the violin's unique tone, as well as sometimes noticeable differences in the sound of two different violins that may look nearly identical.
    Sophisticated violin makers and researchers have mapped the resonance profiles and modal activity of various old violins to learn the secrets of the old masters.  Here are some interesting animations that also help to illustrate the vibration modes.  Based on what they've learned, they are now on the verge of unlocking the design secrets that gave these old masterpieces their superb sound quality.  The "old Masters" were evidently master experimenters themselves, in a period before violin making was transformed from an art to a handicraft.

4.  Importance of faithful harmonic reproduction:  The strings by themselves produce very little sound directly, but depend on instrument resonance.  One interesting curiosity is that the instrument body has almost no resonance at the fundamental frequency of the lowest string on the violin (G string, 196 cps); however, since most of the harmonics are well represented, the human ear is thoroughly "fooled" into thinking it is hearing the fundamental G-string pitch, based on the frequency spacing between the harmonics.

5.  Varnish and Vibrato Properties:  When the player's finger rolls back and forth slightly on the fingerboard to create a vibrato sound, this only modulates the base frequency up and down a tiny bit.  However, when we look at the upper order harmonics and their interactions, the effect is greatly amplified, and the frequency spectra varies dramatically.  A lot of drastic and crazy magnitude perturbations are going on in those higher order harmonics, and our ears--perhaps the world's greatest spectrum analyzers, capable of detecting the slightest nuances associated with human speech--are able to put it all together such that they can still recognize it as merely a small perturbation in the base frequency.  This may also help to explain why vibrato produces the "fiery tone" that has such a pleasing effect on the ears and an enhanced projection ability--it gives our "auditory processor" some very interesting stuff to chew on, as well as increasing the stimulation of our auditory receptor hairs.  Vibrato also tends to further set apart the characteristic "violin sound" from every other instrument sound and make it even more distinctly recognizable as a violin and nothing else.  Incidentally, "vibrato intensity" varies between violins and is often what sets a great violin apart from a good violin.  One of the most important design parameters that affect the vibrato intensity is the type, thickness, penetration depth and application technique of violin primer and varnish, which affects resonance dampening.

6.  Sound Peg:  When the bridge vibrates, it mostly pivots off the treble foot (near the sound peg)--or, perhaps more accurately, it pivots off the position of the sound peg itself.  Most of the vibrations are transmitted via the bass foot of the bridge onto the top plate (or belly) and rib (or bass bar), which itself transmits the vibration over a larger area of the top plate.  This is why the position of the sound peg is critical, and has a very noticeable affect on the sound of the instrument.

7.  F-Holes:  The real reason for the F-holes is not for "purty", but for two purposes:  (a) To connect the air inside and outside the instrument and allow for a Helmholtz acoustic resonance, which is the lowest frequency resonance of the instrument (usually about 260-280 Hz).   (b) To allow the part of the top plate lying between the F-holes to move (i.e., vibrate) more easily than most of the wood of the body.  Naturally, the length and relative position of the F-holes has an important effect on the sound.  (I would also guess the curvature and rounded terminations of the F-holes are at least partly based on engineering considerations to minimize stress and cracking in the wood.)

8.  Bow Design:  Ever wonder why a violin bow is arched in the opposite way that an archery bow is?  Originally, violin bows were made like archery bows, i.e., curved away from the strings.  The tension in the horse hairs was relatively independent of the pressure applied to the strings.  Then someone realized that if they were bent in the opposite direction, this would give the following advantage:  As the bow hairs are pressed more firmly on the strings, they pull on the ends of the wooden bow, which itself tends to straighten rather than bowing further, resulting in more tension in the bow hairs.  This means the violin player can successfully exert a wider range of pressure on the bow, resulting in a wider range of dynamic volume from the instrument.  Another effect of the modern (Tourte) bow is the presence of the 'hatchet" head, which distributes more weight to the tip, allowing a more uniform application of force during the stroke.

9.  Tonal Shaping:  Here are some additional acoustical considerations in a violin that are related to its design but which may still be somewhat of an art as well as a science:
    a)  Techniques to eliminate wolf tones
    b)  Design of the bridge and its effect on sound filtering and impedance mediation
    c)  Adjusting tonal color and resonance profile

10.  Other considerations besides acoustics:  We've only covered the acoustical underpinnings of violin design.  Much more could written about additional design requirements relating to structural strength, durability/abrasion/wear properties, prevention of wood cracking, ergonomics and playability, etc.  Here are just a very few representative examples:
    a)  Ergonomics and Playability:  The violin in symmetrical, easily accommodating left- or right-handed players and making design and construction easier.  It's overall length and fingerboard length/cross section accommodates the average human attempting to play it.
    b)  Structural/Hardness/Wear & Abrasion resistance/Forming Requirements:  Selections of different woods with different physical properties for different parts of the instrument, careful selection of grain directions, and special bending and lamination techniques all ensure the violin will support itself and hold up to repeated use, in addition to exhibiting its desired acoustic properties.
    c)  Nature Inspiration:  Just in case there were any design parameters still open after all the other requirements were met, the old violin masters' designs were inspired by nature, specifically the golden ratio.  Thus, the anthropomorphic instrument shape, the nautilus scroll shape, and the spacing of the F-holes all satisfy the golden ratio.  Some would say this transcends a mere design preference, tapping into the wisdom of nature itself.

11.  The scroll.  Yes, the scroll!!  Surely this must be just ornamental, even though its design is inspired by nature.  After all, some violins have peg boxes topped off with lion's heads or faces instead.  (Okay, so I was right about the scroll!)  It could just have easily been left as an ugly, un-carved portion of the tuning box.  But would this have been conscionable on the part of the violin maker, after the many hours of work he spent crafting a beautiful looking and beautiful sounding instrument?  Of course not!  It would have broken every principle of aesthetics.  It would be worse than leaving the hood ornament off a Rolls Royce or leaving the figurehead off the prow of a sailing ship.
   Of course, fancy or not, there may be some practical reasons associated with the "hunk of wood" represented by the scroll.  Some people theorize it that it helps "balance" the instrument.  The scroll shape may have made it easier to hang the instrument on a line to dry out the varnish.  The mass of wood also might help to stiffen the peg box and reduce the likelihood of the wood cracking.  It also protects the tuning pegs from being accidentally bumped when the instrument is put down.
    So, in conclusion, I was only 97% wrong.  In general, stringed instruments like the violin may look simple and uncomplicated from a distance, but they produce a more complex sound and represent the result of more painstaking experimentation than any other musical instrument man has ever conceived of.

10.  Here's a very un-scientific comment on my part:  I like to think that string instruments like the violin have such a beautiful and rich sound partly because they were originally made 100% from wood and other materials that were originally living things, i.e., maple, spruce, ebony, brazilwood, animal glue, sheep intestines, horsehair and tree sap.  On the other hand, one could argue that many other instruments share this property; take for example, the didgeridoo.  While its sound is undeniably rich, the beauty of its sound might be held in question.  So you can take this proposition with a grain of salt!

11.  I can't help adding one more un-scientific ramble:  is the beautiful aesthetic quality of a violin purely the result of its technical specifications?  I think not--I suspect one could theoretically make a rather ugly violin that  played well and sounded beautiful (although this might even take more effort than to make it look beautiful).  But what is the likelihood that someone attuned to musical aesthetics would be simultaneously blind to visual aesthetics?  Most people would answer that there is little chance of this.  In fact, I can't think of any musical instruments that don't have a certain beauty to them.  The desire and admiration for beauty transcends the medium.  Thus, we go to a beautiful auditorium to watch and listen to beautifully-dressed musicians on a beautiful stage playing beautiful music on beautiful instruments...sometimes while the beautifully-scented audience (well, a few of them at least) is also eating beautiful looking and tasty food, or exchanging beautiful smiles or whispering sweet nothings in each others' ears...

12.  The website of well-known master luthier (violin maker) and acoustic researcher Martin Schelski has lots of interesting technical stuff related to the acoustics of violins.  His quotes--shown below--indicate his great admiration for the old violin masters:
    "By seeking to decipher the fascinating acoustic secrets of the old  Italian masters, I have compiled an impressive body of experience."
   "Through my research, the great Italian masters have gone from being historical examples to become my contemporary teachers."
    "...Preserving the tradition of violin making necessarily involves breaking away from it.  Why?  The tradition is too rooted in the development of new sounds."
    "The deeper I probe in my acoustic investigation of the violin, the more I gain a sense of reverence for its mastery."
    "Knowledge that is passed down must be brought to life through one's own experience and thus carried on before something that is special and authentic can come to be."
    "Only in a highly creative milieu that advanced both art and science could the perfection embodied in a work like the violin come into existence.  It was not until the 19th century violin making devolved into mere handicraft."
     "My passion as a violin maker has its roots in the original interplay between art and science:  the only way to overcome barriers is to speak both languages."
    "A painter communicates with colors like a violinist does with the instrument's resonances."
    "I firmly believe that music is simply a prayer that is cast in sound."

Odds & Ends #2

Recently, I was under the weather and spent a lot of time in a recliner reading Economist magazines and such...in fact, most of the following comments are distilled from such reading (no originality from me), and I've referenced the articles in case you want to read them in their entirety.  Just stuff I found interesting.

1.  Foxconn, the worlds largest contract manufacturer, is seeking to improve its margins as it expands in the interior of China, in a bid to once again double in size.  It's net margin has slipped to about 2% even as it has employed more people, although its latest earnings have surged, partly because Apple is paying more for their services, something Apple is putting a positive, wishful spin on by characterizing as a "subsidy", rather than meeting a demand to cough up more money.  Part of the reason for Foxconn's low margins has been greater worker demands for higher pay and better working conditions.  Another reason is its status as a "midstream" manufacturer, with little involvement in the higher profits associated with design (upstream) and marketing/sales (downstream).  Apple, which represents 40-45% of its revenues, makes obscene profits by comparison.  Typically, it costs Apple a few dollars to have a product assembled, which it then sells for several hundred dollars.  This hasn't escaped the notice of Foxconn management.  They're strategy is to gain control over more of the component design and manufacturing.  (For instance, Intel is planning to hand over the lion's share of R&D of its motherboards to Foxconn, as part of an acknowledgment that Foxconn now has more experience and expertise, not to mention a likely bonus for the Intel managers who identified this cost reduction.)  Foxconn also plans to help its customers sell their product in China via its stake in several retail chains.  While these moves are designed to help both their customers and themselves, the longer term effect for Foxconn is an eventual reduction in their competition, more IP within their control, and greater bargaining power for them, which (in my opinion) could eventually "expose" companies like Apple as mere "shell" companies with little value or leverage and thus leave them on the trash heap of a once-great American high-tech industry.  Perhaps Sharp serves as a harbinger of things to come.  Incidentally, Foxconn is a nice Western-sounding trade name, although I'm wondering if whoever came up with that particular name might have had a Machiavellian twinkle in his eye.  The real name of this Taiwanese company is the Chinese equivalent of "Hon Hai Precision Industry Co."

2.  Speaking of IP (intellectual property), in 2011 China's patent applications increased by 2/3, knocking the U.S. off the top spot.  Europe now has a more-or-less unified patent system, while the U.S. signed a patent reform bill into law last year after years of fruitless efforts at reform.  The cost, bureaucracy and delays associated with obtaining a patent unfortunately still remain huge problems in both Europe and the U.S.  One reason (in the case of the U.S.) is that the high fees associated with patent applications are not retained by the patent office, but may instead go toward other government expenditures.  Meanwhile, the U.S. government patent office is critically understaffed.
   On a related subject, fat royalty payments for intellectual property is a favorite legal scam used by big companies to shelter their profits in lower-tax countries and in tax havens like Bermuda, Barbados and the Cayman Islands.  Ninety-eight of the 100 companies in the FTSE 100 have at least one subsidiary in a tax haven, where profits go in the form of such things as "royalty payments".  Even companies like Google and Amazon do this.  In my opinion, the solution to these shenanigans is simple:  eliminate all corporate taxes, and replace with more taxes on high-income individuals.  This will not only eliminate the shenanigans, but will encourage companies to do more business in the U.S.
   Perhaps the most pressing issue with "intellectual property" though, is represented by our college students who are highly educated and unemployable.  A wasted intellect is a tragic situation--a situation that was begotten of the belief that a "real" college or university education was a first-rate education while a vocational school or community college education was seen as less desirable.  According to an article in the Economist, skills shortages are getting worse even as youth unemployment reaches record highs in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere.  Companies are now partnering more and more with vocational schools to attract, train and employ people with needed technical skills, while colleges and universities still are largely confined to their own ivory towers.  South Korea may serve as at least one model, in that it has created a network of vocational schools--called "meister" schools--to reduce the country's shortage of machine operators and plumbers.  Apple and other companies are paying Foxconn to open some plants in the U.S. and Brazil.  Part of the hope is that Foxconn, who has a lot of expertise in training China's backward rural residents with little education to run their assembly lines, may be uniquely qualified to train our "worthless" college students how to likewise do something useful.  (Having said this, I want to emphasize that I personally feel everyone should have some modicum of a liberal arts education--not necessarily as a route to a job, but to enrich their lives and make them better citizens.)

3.  There has been a lot of discussion about whether universal government ID cards and a universal database rich in information are a good idea from the standpoint of an individual's privacy, data security and potential abuses, and regarding what level and on what pretext government spying on its own citizens may be justifiable.  This is an important subject with a lot of opinions.  However, articles such as this as well as the proliferation of smartphones makes me wonder if, in the final analysis, government spying may become the least of our worries. Perhaps the most pressing issue will become, to what extent and under what pretext can one individual or company spy on another, and to what extent can such rules actually be enforced?  Could our future society turn into a paranoid, windowless nightmare?  Or would the nation instead turn into one big party line where we get used to everybody knowing the most intimate details about everybody else, and if so, what would it be like to live in a society where there were no such thing as privacy?

Odds and Ends #1

1.  In a gratuitous but mistaken nod to "Muslim technical accomplishments", a British "science news" article lists the top 20 "islamic" inventions.  It was quickly lauded and reprinted by Islamic News organizations.  This is a revealing example of how a seemingly uncontroversial, technical, "factual" "science" article can actually be completely false and yet be quickly parroted and quoted without questioning.  Fortunately, a scathing rebuttal to this article was published by someone in a wiki article titled "How Islamic Inventors Did Not Change the World".  Lies never serve any good purpose.

2.  There are so many controversial issues related to ethics and morality.  Our perspective on these issues can change depending on how close we are to the issue, or on whether it affects us or our friends personally, or depending on how we view the circumstances.  These issues typically pit competing historical, scientific, aesthetic, cultural or moral judgments or values against each other in a way that makes the issue complex or convoluted.  The ancient Sophists prided themselves on being able to persuasively argue either side of an issue.  Perhaps someday I will have clear answers to all of life's most vexing dilemmas, but alas, as I get older, I seem to be getting less quick to make a judgement...or maybe it's just my brain slowing down.  :-)
   Do you sometimes get the feeling that the more rules and laws we enact, the less moral our society becomes?  Perhaps it's the type of "bureaucratic regulations" that get passed, that just open up more loop holes for bad people to find while technically not breaking the law.  What if, instead, we passed vague-sounding laws like, "you shall not lie, cheat or steal" and "you treat others as you would be treated"?  Or better yet, like Google, "You shall do no evil."  Yeah, yeah, I know, it would be lawyer heaven.  Ya just can't legislate good behavior.

3.  Incidentally, here are some more articles that fit under the subject of "unintended consequences":
     a)  The Drug War is responsible for more violence than perhaps anything else in our society
     b)  The Biggest Dope Dealer on Planet Earth is the pharmaceutical industry, with more deaths from narcotic pain pills than from heroin and cocaine combined
     c)  Forced Unionization (versus right-to-work) correlates to higher unemployment, larger state government debt, and migration out of state.  (Obviously not a big surprise.)

4.  Earlier this Summer I hiked and camped in the Grand Canyon.  Note that I am not a geologist, I have only a rudimentary laymen's understanding of evolutionary geology and tectonic plate theory, and I am not promoting any particular viewpoint.  Nevertheless, I couldn't help wondering if some of the formations I saw in the Grand Canyon--contrary to traditional explanations--were actually the result of catastrophic processes.  Here's an intriguing presentation that argues the Grand Canyon is actually the poster child for a catastrophic flood.  The presenter argues from the view of a Recent Earth Creationist, a view that even I do not have.  Nevertheless, see for yourself whether or not you find the presenter's "cataclysmic flood based" explanation for the interesting strata and formations more convincing than the conventional explanation of sedimentary deposits over many millions of years.  Certainly, I don't think evolutionary geology does a very elegant job of explaining a lot of geologic anomalies.  However, after doing a little research on my own, it became evident that many of the specific arguments in this clip have fairly reasonable counter arguments.  So we're back to square one.  Experiences like this have made me more careful not to trust science that's intermingled with either religious or atheistic dogma...unfortunately, it seems that science often becomes the bruised and battered victim of competing world views, rather than some pristine, inexorable path to ultimate truth.  As such, it has taken on a split personality, each of which detests the other.
   Another example of world views influencing science, are the competing and contradictory positions taken between our own scientists in the U.S. who postulate a marine fossil origin for petroleum, versus the Russian explanation of  "abiotic oil", which is still widely subscribed to by Russian experts.  This difference of opinion has persisted for many years, and it even affects the techniques for prospecting of new petroleum deposits.  I tend to discount the Russians' abiotic explanation, not only on scientific grounds (as do most U.S. experts), but also because I believe it's perpetuated by national pride, a disregard for environmental stewardship, and a refusal to acknowledge that our global reserves of oil may be limited.

5.  Have you heard of the American Taliban?  I don't necessarily agree with everything this author says, and I believe that only a small minority of Americans are truly "radicals" or "wackos", but his comparison of some far right religious radicals to the Taliban is nevertheless thought-provoking.  After all, the Taliban in the Middle East also represent a small minority, but they have had an out sized influence because of their violent tactics.  One has to ask whether these people could also be compared to the Jewish Zealots and Sicarii of AD 66-70, who declared themselves on the side of God, presided over a reign of terror over the Jews, revolted in an ethnic, nationalistic holy war against their Roman occupation and effectively sealed the grisly fate of the Jews in 70 AD.

Who REALLY Discovered America First?

(The following post is not meant to be disrespectful to the native peoples of the Americas, who are acknowledged to be the true first discoverers of the North and South American continents.)

Who (beside the native peoples) really discovered America first? The answer to this is more interesting than you might think.

The most common answer you'll hear is Christopher Colombus; however, in 1492 AD he actually discovered only a few small islands in the Caribbean, neither the North nor South American mainland.

So who actually discovered North America? The conventional answer used to be Giovanni Caboto (also known as John Cabot), who in 1497--in a virtual race against against other explorers--discovered Newfoundland, and later the coast of North America. This allowed England to lay claim to the entire continent. Of course, later on, the conventional wisdom changed to Leif Erikson, who in 1001 AD discovered Baffin Island and Newfoundland. Actually, he may have duplicated an earlier trip apparently made by Bjarni Hergelfson, who became lost at sea, drifted to North America where he described the coastline of what was likely Newfoundland, but refused to land his ship there. Leif witnessed his return a year later and undoubtedly was inspired by his account.  Based on archaeological evidence, later expeditions ventured further into Canada and the U.S.

Who discovered the South American mainland? The conventional answer is Amerigo Vespucci who, while undoubtedly not the first person to set foot on the continent, was known for his travel accounts and who had done his research and recognized this was indeed a new continent.

Another (albeit unlikely) discoverer of America who told of his experience is St. Brendan the Navigator, an Irish abbot who may have lived in the 6th century AD, but his fantastical account makes it seem rather unlikely that he actually sailed to America.

Oh, and there's Jean Cousins, a Normand navigator who claimed to have discovered the new world (Brazil)  in 1488, 4 years prior to Columbus.  One of his captains, Alonzo Pinzon, is claimed to have later left for Spain, from where he advised Columbus on his Westward sail.  Pinzon is known to have displayed a remarkable confidence in guiding Columbus in his discovery of the New world.  The disagreements and drama that occurred between Columbus and Pinzon caused biographers to paint either the willful Pinzon or Columbus as a nasty villain depending on their point of view, but the most likely lesson we can learn from this is the need for a detailed written agreement prior to the commencement of any business partnership.  The only thing that can be said for sure, is that Columbus would definitely not have discovered the new world had it not been for Pinzon, who provided the ships, the crew, the navigational expertise, and the courage to press on when the going got tough.  He even contributed an amount of money towards the venture that was equal to half the amount of money Ferdinand and Isabella had contributed.

But is this the whole story? I originally thought so...at least, until the other day, when I happened to be reading Herodotus' Histories and noticed his comment regarding the Phoenicians, who were the most well-known and intrepid sailors and traders of ancient times. Around 600 BC, they actually sailed all around the continent of Africa. Herodotus comments that he has trouble believing this account, because it was claimed that as they traveled around the perimenter of the African continent, they observed the sun to be in the northern part of the sky. This was an incredible and ridiculous claim in his estimation (but a confirmation to modern readers that it was indeed a credible account.) This is amazing enough in and of itself, considering that no Europeans accomplished this feat until Vasco de Gama in 1497 AD, nearly 2100 years later.

More amazing yet, are ancient writings, circumstantial evidence, and retrieved artifacts that suggests the ancient Phoenicians may have also discovered America. For instance, the Greek historian Dioderus claimed that the Carthaginians had a "large island" which was located "far out in the Atlantic ocean" - on which there were "many mountains" and "large navigable rivers". The land was rich in gold, gems, spices, etc. He stated that the Phoenicians had found it "by accident" while founding colonies on the west coast of Africa when some ships got lost. The Carthaginians were famously secretive about their trade routes and trading partners, and they did not allow foreign ships to pass through the straits of Gibraltar. When Carthage was completely destroyed by the Romans, most of this knowledge--assuming it existed--may have been lost.
    However, one of Plutarch's (2nd century AD) lesser known works cites a document which was supposedly found in the ruins of the old city of Carthage. He said the Carthaginians knew of a "true continent" which was located far to the west of Britain. He added that "Greeks" had gone there and intermarried with the local peoples. The "Greeks", who may have lived there several hundred years BC, laughed at the people in Europe, which they said was a mere island by comparison - while they lived on the true continent which bordered the whole west side of the Atlantic. This story may reference a theoretical or mythical land and is thus rather weak "evidence", but it is nevertheless intriguing. It reminds one somewhat of Plato's dialogue which describes the great continent "Atlantis" that lay beyond the Western horizon.
    The famous Waldseemuller Map of 1507 has an inscription on the top left corner that proclaims the discovery of South America by Columbus and Vespucci fulfilled a prophecy of the Roman poet, Virgil. "Many have regarded as an invention the words of a famous poet that "beyond the stars lies a land, beyond the path of the year and the sun, where Atlas, who supports the heavens, revolves on his shoulders the axis of the world, set with gleaming stars", but now finally it proves clearly to be true. For there is a land, discovered by Columbus, a captain of the King of Castile, and by Americus Vespucius, both men of very great ability, which, though in great part lies beneath "the path of the year and of the sun" and between the tropics, nevertheless extends about 19 degrees beyond the Tropic of Capricorn toward the Antarctic Pole, "beyond the path of the year and the sun". Here a greater amount of gold has been found than of any other metal."
    Aristotle mentioned that the Carthaginians had once attempted a colony in their "secret land" but later withdrew it, blocking others from attempting it including their allies the Etruscans and even the Tyrians fleeing the wrath of Alexander.

What is most intriguing of all, however, is the circumstantial evidence, artifacts and inscriptions found in both North and South America that show the Phoenicians may have visited, temporarily settled, and possibly even made trading expeditions to North America. This source and also this source present some fascinating propositions and supporting evidence. Also, it has been speculated that the gold coins minted in the Punic/Phoenician city in North Africa of Carthage between 350 and 320 BC may show a world map that includes North America. While all this circumstantial and artifactual evidence still does not positively prove the presence of ancient Phoenicians in North and South America, it does give one pause.

Here is another list of some artifacts and inscriptions that point not only to Phoenicians, but also possibly to Greeks & Romans, Egyptians, Hebrews and Asians all having possibly visited North and South America in ancient (or very ancient) times.  The book, Indians in the Americas--The Untold Story also appears to provide a much more exhaustive list of evidence and cultural similarities to these and other possible ancient visitors to the Americas, but I have not yet read this book.  In any case, it is most likely that such sailors strayed off course, accidentally discovered North or South America, and never made it back across the Atlantic to tell about it, whereas there is a bit more reason to believe the Phoenicians may have made the return journey at least once, if not many times.  Also, the Phoenicians had, at different times, very close political, commercial, religious and cultural ties with all these peoples as well as the Iberian Celts, so some of the evidence may also point indirectly to the Phoenicians.

How likely is it that a ship could run off course from the African or European coastline and end up in South America with its passengers surviving the trip?  Consider this article.  These two inexperienced young men rowed across the Atlantic in 73 days.  And the return trip?  Consider this article--this guy sailed across the Atlantic in a 10 foot sailboat in 54 days.  Even pilotless boats have drifted across the Atlantic.  The boats mentioned are all tiny, even compared to ancient sailing ships.  Today, sailing yachts as small as 30-40 ft routinely cross the Atlantic.  The Atlantic trade winds are also favorable to this being achieved.

While all of this conjecture and evidence is not strong enough to prove beyond all doubt that the Phoenicians (or some other ancient peoples) sailed to America--we don't know how many of the supposed artifacts are forgeries--I would nevertheless argue that the evidence indicates a very reasonable likelihood.

Unpredictability, Chaos, and the Butterfly Effect

Note to the reader:  If you don't have the time to wade through this whole post but just want the "main thrust", skip to the last paragraph.  You won't miss all that much.



Perhaps you can identify a common theme in the following articles:

1.  Active investing (picking stocks, timing the market, etc.) is a losing game.  Period.  End of story.  If you don't believe this, you are ignoring hundreds of detailed studies and analyses (understandably compiled by those touting index funds), and you are merely hoping you are the lucky 1% who are just that--lucky.  Unfortunately, brokers, investment companies, stock trading firms like TDAmeritrade, and various pundits continue to promote the illusion that stock picking works, and all you need are the latest tools and strategies.  This helps their business, but does not help you.  There is even some evidence that the smarter you are, the worse you'll do.  A diversified portfolio, or investing in a broad index fund--and very rarely touching it--is the best way to maximize your returns while minimizing your stress and wasted time.   This is especially true today, where the financial industry has transformed itself into a global casino.

2.  Hedge fund managers--who are supposedly the "creme-de-la-creme" and who have additional financial instruments, tools, data, leverage, flexibility and clout that most of us don't have--aren't even beating the S&P500. Warren looks like he's on the verge of winning his bet.  When we are provided more data and more tools, this only gives us the illusion that we have a better chance of beating the stock market.  The only way to consistently beat the stock market is to break the law--i.e., use inside information or run a ponzi scheme or manipulate the market or misrepresent what you're selling--in other words, lie/cheat/steal.

3.  Individual economic forecasters--and even these forecasters taken in the aggregate--are often wrong, and here are some possible reasons why, along with some specific examples of outrageously-flawed economic predictions.  

4.  Even political scientists make lousy predictions, due to the inherently unpredictable and shifting nature of political power, alliances and propaganda and the sheer number and diversity of their purveyors on the world stage.  The civil war in Syria is a prime example of a political situation that has a lot of dynamics and a high degree of unpredictability.  Many countries--as well as radical Islamic groups--have their eye on Syria and are bent on furthering their own agendas.

 5.  Psychiatrists and psychologists--who are highly trained--have a rather dismal record of predicting (much less treating or curing) violent behavior in individuals.  We have a long way to go before we can truly understand all the subtleties and complexities of how the human brain works, much less make such predictions.  Unfortunately, this doesn't stop them from making error-fraught predictions that can dramatically affect lives.

6.  In general, experts in any field of complex behavior--for example when it involves human relations--are generally lousy at predictions, and are often worse than non-experts, and even worse than simple statistical formulas or mathematical averages.  Some reasons for this are suggested in this article.  Another phenomenon that tempts people to believe they can make accurate predictions about the future, is that "things seem obvious once you know the answer" (i.e., when you look into the past).  This is discussed in the presentation "The Myth of Common Sense".

By now, you've realized that all these articles concern the difficulty in making predictions when the complexity of a system is so overwhelming that it is virtually unpredictable.  And even systems that--on the surface--don't necessarily seem so complex to us often display a characteristic called "sensitive dependence to initial conditions", also sometimes called the "butterfly effect."  This non-linear characteristic makes systems chaotic, even while they remain deterministic.  It is the essence of chaos theory.  A good example of this is the weather, as well as other natural phenomenon such as earthquakes.  Note that we can do a pretty good job of predicting tomorrow's weather based on today's weather.  With less accuracy, we can even predict day-after-tomorrow's weather.  Assuming the weather is in the habit of changing, our ability to predict the weather a week out is very poor, despite complex computer models and hugely powerful computers.  Two weeks out?  Forget it, flip a coin instead.  This limitation is not likely to change much, even with another 10, 100 or 1000-fold increase in computing power.

For those wanting a little more scientific explanation of why our world is so unpredictable, this non-technical video explains how chaos theory limits predictability.  An elementary chaos theory text also explains some important concepts, including the most important concept of "sensitive dependence".  In general, the more complex and non-linear the system dynamics, the more unpredictable the system is, and the more difficult it is to predict or control any specific future outcome.


So....why am I talking about all this?  This might seem to be a pessimistic discussion, given we are forced to acknowledge that the machinery of our planet, of life and of society tends to be so non-linear, so complex and so bewildering that we cannot predict future events to any extent, much less control them...that the world is chaotic, that we are merely one little unimportant cog in this mysterious machine...

However, there are also some instructive aspects to this discussion.

1.  There is a certain relief in knowing that we can take all those shockingly grim or Pollyanna forecasts with a grain of salt--gripping predictions merely make for gripping headlines that sell advertising.  Great things and horrible things do happen, but neither you nor anyone else will be able to predict them very far into the future.  It's also a relief to know that we can also stop spending a lot of time actively managing our investments--it's not just a waste of time, it also costs money and peace of mind.

2.  If, as stated previously, stock trading doesn't work, what about high frequency trading?  Interestingly, in theory this DOES give the trader an advantage.  The more powerful his computers, the more sophisticated his algorithms and --most importantly--the less real-time delay in his trades (and thus the better his predictive accuracy), the greater the advantage.  Of course, with many high-frequency traders competing, this again becomes a zero-sum game.  Currently, an eye-popping 80% of stock trading in the U.S. is attributed to high-frequency trading by computer algorithms that may have no interest in the future worth of a stock beyond a millisecond or so.  While this is a dangerous development, perhaps the human lesson for us is that it is easier for us to predict events, deal with issues and otherwise do well, the closer our mind is to the present.  It is also much easier and more advantageous for us to live in the present, rather than having our thoughts continually drifting into the future or the past.  As someone said, "I cannot predict the future; I cannot change the past; I have just the present;I must treat it as my last."  (...Just in case this post wasn't already preachy enough.)

3.  Using the "mysterious machine" metaphor, imagine that you are staring down from a high scaffold into a huge and extremely complicated mechanical contraption with myriad whizzing gears and flywheels, levers, dials and such, located in the middle of  your city.  You are told that this machine is indirectly responsible for the financial, social, physical and environmental well-being of everyone in your city.  However, it is so enormous and so complicated that you get dizzy just staring at it.  You think to yourself  "if only I could understand this machine better, perhaps that knowledge could benefit me, allow me to manipulate it and possibly give me some advantage!"  But you will never understand the machine that well.  What can you do?  All you have in your possession is a drop of oil and a pinch of sand.  You can choose to toss the drop of oil or the pinch of sand into the machine.  So can 100,000 others who live in your city.  The moral of this story is that even if you cannot predict, control or manipulate the machine, you can still influence it in a positive or negative way.  That pinch of sand or drop of oil may or may not make a huge difference--either negative or positive--in the smooth functioning of the machine, depending on where it falls.  Borrowing some statistical terminology from medicine, we would label this a stochastic effect rather than a strictly deterministic effect.  Our individual actions do matter, because by definition, without them, there would be no such thing as a collective influence and thus no such thing as a deterministic outcome--which we know does, in reality, exist.  Also, every action we or someone else takes that we know DOES matter, is actually the ultimate result of myriad prior actions that--each taken by itself--might otherwise have seemed not to matter.

4.  What if, by your fiery eloquence, you were able to convince 500 other people that some part of the machine might be evil and was not necessarily working in their interests?  What if those 500 people decided to throw sand into the machine as a result of your rhetoric?  On top of that, what if one person had illegally collected a bag of rocks and threw them in as well?  To what extent should you feel responsible if part of the machine stopped functioning as a result?  Some people incite others to destructive behavior but excuse themselves from any responsibility.  They point to the 2000 other people who had already thrown sand into the machine, independent of their influence.  They defend themselves by asking how anyone can prove they were specifically responsible.  They further defend themselves by saying that random events happen all the time, so how can a bad outcome be traced to them given the unpredictability of bad events anyway?  In other words, "I didn't specifically ask anybody to throw sand into the machine, much less rocks!  I can't be responsible for the illegal actions of crazy people!  I was just suggesting that the machine could be improved!"  These people have been sometimes characterized as "stochastic terrorists".  Of course, on the flip side, there are surely "stochastic humanitarians" as well--whose positive influence has an equally unpredictable yet overwhelmingly positive effect on the lives of others.

5.  Is there a mathematical analogy that can help explain how something can seem totally random yet be totally deterministic?  Well, how about the sequence of digits in an irrational number like pi, e, sqrt(2), etc?  Since a rational number can be described as the sum of an infinite sequence where the next term in the sequence is always a particular function of previous terms in the sequence, it is deterministic, even though the terms result in a string of digits that look like a random sequence.  Actually, an engineer or physicist would tell you that any system's output--not just the series of digits in an irrational number--can theoretically be computed for the "next instant of time" based on a differential equation--the only catch is, you must completely understand and be able to measure all the inputs, outputs and dynamic characteristics of the system (as described by differential equations), and you must not choose too large a time step.  If all these requirements are met, you can--computationally--predict with reasonable accuracy what's going to happen next. However, imperfect accuracy in system assumptions, measurement accuracy and computing precision can affect your results, and the further you go into the future, the more drastic is your resulting prediction error, especially for a typical, real-life, non-linear system where errors get magnified quickly.

6.  If you believe that you live in a random, unpredictable world, you might come to the conclusion that your actions don't matter much.  However, as previously stated, the world is NOT random, it is instead chaotic, which means that while it may appear on the surface to be random, it is nevertheless deterministic--everything has a cause, and everything has an effect.  Everything you do makes a difference, and your actions could conceivably influence the world more than you ever imagined--remember the butterfly affect?  Here's an inspiring Butterfly Effect video by Andy Andrews.  If you liked this, here's another one by the same person.

"Happiness Advantage" Book Review

On a recent road trip, I listened to the (audio)book "Happiness Advantage", by Shawn Achor.  It's chock full of fascinating psychological study results, not to mention practical suggestions for how to be happy based on numerous studies and the author's own research.  Given the sheer number of books on positive psychology, it might be presumptuous to call this the best book ever written on happiness (notwithstanding the Good Book), and I don't want to sound like a shill for the book.  However, I did find it helpful, so I'll provide a summary for those who are interested:

Happiness is hard to define--experts tend to identify it as having components of pleasure, engagement and meaning, but even this is an oversimplification.  While happiness is not something we can pursue directly, there ARE some practical things we can do to greatly increase our likelihood of being happy, according to the author.  These include exercise, journaling, meditation, lifelong learning and most importantly, scheduling time each and every day 

     (a) to recount three good things that we feel glad or happy about in the last 24 hours

     (b) to plan a "random act of kindness" or even a word of praise or encouragement for someone else

     (c) to plan to do something to help maintain and preserve good relationships with our family, friends and co-workers

Sadly, as the author admits, most people will nod their heads in agreement, will consider this good, practical common sense, but will nevertheless fail to follow through on this advice in their own personal lives.

These recommendations are strictly based on psychological study results as well as the author's own research.  Being a Christian, I tend to see these recommendations as an echo of some of the exhortations of Jesus, who was "anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows," and who said "it is more blessed to give than to receive", "love one another as I have loved you" and so on.  If you are not a Christian, you can still prove for yourself whether or not these recommendations work in your own life.  I personally believe for myself that they are even more potent in the context of my Christian faith.  In any case, if this is not put into practice, it becomes useless either way.

Some other conclusions from the book:

1)  "Success" is the result of "happiness", not the other way around.  This simple concept has been demonstrated time and time again by numerous psychological studies and the latest research.

2)  Average levels of happiness have surprisingly limited correlation to our wealth, status, geographic location, culture, race, and most other factors over which we have little control.  "90% of your long-term happiness is predicted not by the external world, but by the way your brain processes the world."

3)  Numerous psychological studies demonstrate the critical nature of perceptions, and the huge effect they can have on us.  What we tell ourselves and what others tell us--even the language used--can shape these perceptions.  These perceptions, in turn, have a critically-important effect on the direction of our lives, and can prime us for success or failure.  (It is difficult to convey just how subtle and yet how dramatic this effect can be without describing some of the amazing psychological study results cited in the book.)  Also, while brain plasticity is well documented, our messages to ourselves and others must convey the belief that we (and they) are truly capable of learning and improving in whatever we endeavor to do.  As evidenced also by the placebo effect, we tend to greatly underestimate the power of our beliefs and perceptions.

4)  The "tetris effect" describes how our state of mind, mental habits and perceptions can alter our experience of the actual world--i.e., what information we consciously identify and what information our brain automatically filters out as unimportant.  In this way, two people may have very different experiences even as they are exposed to identical physical environments. “...what we’re finding is that it’s not necessarily the reality that shapes us, but the lens through which your brain views the world that shapes your reality. If we can change the lens, not only can we change your happiness, but we can change every single educational and business outcome at the same time.”

5)  Married people tend to be happier than single people.  For a marriage (or a business team) to work, there need to be at least 5 positive remarks for each negative remark.  Loners and introspective people tend to be the most unhappy, as are people who use the word "I" a lot (versus "we").  People under stress sometimes withdraw from their support network of family and friends just when they need them the most.  Good social relationships are essential to happiness.

6)  Our mood--even a simple smile--can have far reaching consequences to those around us and can be re-transmitted far beyond even those people.  So can the presence of stress and irritability.  Often, the subtle perceptions gleaned from a manager's words and conduct at a meeting can have a profound effect on the mood, stress level, self-confidence and emotional well-being of his entire organization, without him or her even realizing it.

7)  Don't waste your will power on unimportant, unnecessary temptations and decisions.  We each have only so much will power to use up each day before it's spent, and it's best to spend it wisely, on choices that are truly important.  For example, don't tempt yourself unnecessarily by driving by the Dunkin' Donuts shop each morning and then agonizing over whether you should stop for a donut and coffee.  And don't spend 10 minutes each morning agonizing over whether or not you will exercise, where you will go, what you will do, for how long, etc. when you could just as easily make these decisions ahead of time as part of a set schedule.

8)  Use the 20 second rule to help you develop good habits:  We all have a lazy streak--tasks that take more than 20 seconds to get started on tend not to get done, and vice versa.  To encourage a particular habit, make it easy to initiate that activity--for example, if you want to learn how to play guitar, put the guitar in a convenient place in your living room where you can easily pick it up without dragging it up from the basement, taking it out of the case, tuning it, finding your music, etc.  On the other hand, to discourage a bad habit such as repeatedly checking your e-mail, make it intentionally a little less convenient (i.e., requiring more than 20 seconds) to fire up your e-mail program, enter your password, etc..  This may be all it takes to make a huge difference in your daily habits.

This Tedx video doesn't substitute for the book, but it gives a taste of the author's message, if you are interested.  Another interesting Ted Presentation by Nancy Etcoff provides some interesting statistics that further shows why happiness is a pertinent subject that needs to be better understood.  And of course, this video reminds us of what we can learn from a dog.

Some Informative Humor---Politics and Finance

1. Essential (and humorous) political and economic wisdom from Bird and Fortune (British).  Pretty funny.

a) How the markets work
b) British General on fighting terrorism
c) How investment banking works
d) How the U.S. spreads democracy
e) Why Britain leads the way on immigration policy
f) Why older people ought to start blogging and twittering
g) China syndrome Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5


2.  Here's some other British humor along the same lines (not quite as funny):
a) The BP oil spill
b)  Quantitative Easing
c)  The Greek Economy
d)  Solvency in our time
e)  Rupert Murdoch Crisis
f)  How the economy works
g)  How to run a country
h)  Whale dies of old age
i)  Clean energy
j)  Courtesy costs you nothing
k)  The age of reason


3. Here's some "end-of-the-world" humor of the darker sort.  It's also proof that there's practically no end to the number of ways the world could end, even without counting asteroid impacts.  Not to mention, a reminder that humor is generally made from bad news, sort of like lemonade from lemons.

a) HEADLINE:  ENTIRE WORLD THREATENED
In case you thought the Fukushima nuclear plant complex in Japan was by now safely safely shuttered, Mr. Matsumura, a former ambassador to Switzerland, has recently warned that the Fukushima reactor at building #4 could threaten the entire world and could make life on earth barely possible for centuries to come. "Should the building collapse because of another aftershock or should water from that reactor seep out, it would mean a worldwide disaster of unparalleled proportions."

ON THE BRIGHT SIDE:  Great news for our nuclear waste disposal problem!  We would finally have a choice of several inexpensive places to dump our nuclear waste for the next 1000 years, i.e., WA, OR or CA.  Astute investors can also make money investing in cave real estate, bottled water, canned goods and certain other articles.

b) HEADLINE:  UNITED STATES ENTERING NEW DARK AGE
   i) Americans had a total of about $870 billion in student loan debt in the third quarter of 2011. Delinquency rates are nearly twice that of other household debt, at 21%. College debt has risen faster than wages.
   ii) 53% of recent college grads are jobless or underemployed.
   iii) Higher education institutions are having to grow their long term debt by 12% a year just to make ends meet, and tuition rates have been increasing at 3 times the rate of inflation since 1983, and are set to grow 6.5 times more than the consumer price index by 2030.
ON THE BRIGHT SIDE:  We may finally be pressured into getting serious about computer and internet learning.  Imagine what we could do if we put educators, actors, psychologists and video game developers all in the same room!  Inexpensive, effective computer and internet learning could finally blossom!  And many overworked college professors would finally have time to relax and play tiddly winks with other highly-educated unemployed people!  Here's just one example, for instance.

c) HEADLINE:  HELL MOMENTARILY FREEZES OVER
A Goldman-Sachs employee recently left the company, citing a deterioration in the teamwork, integrity, morality and respect for the clients' interest that used to be a central part of its culture.  

ON THE BRIGHT SIDE:  Good news!  Not all Goldman-Sachs employees former employees are dishonest!!

d) HEADLINE:  ARMAGEDDEN SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 2012
Ehud Barak, the influential Israeli defense minister, gave this ominous and paradoxical reassurance in a televised interview on Friday: "I believe and hope that there will be no war this summer, but that is all that can be said at this time." (7/25/12) Meanwhile, Israeli officials have gone into a special "lockdown" mode since two months ago. Iran's president Ahmadinejad has made his most strident anti-Jewish threat yet. (8/3/12) Goaded on by a recent bombing of key Syrian government officials, the uprising in Syria is quickly becoming a larger war between Sunni and Shia sects, and between Sunni Jihadists and Assad's secularist dictatorship. This war could easily engulf the entire Middle East, and already, foreign fighters are streaming into Syria from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Kuwait and other places. Ahmadinejad has not wasted any time in inserting his own fighters and spies in Syria, as he has his own sectarian (Sunni) interests in opposing the uprising in a country with whose rulers he traditionally has had an alliance. Israel is the biggest potential loser, because Assad and his relatively stable relationship with Israel may be replaced by yet another radical, Jihadist government, or a puppet government controlled by Ahmadinejad.

ON THE BRIGHT SIDE:  The good news is the U.S. for once will not be accused by the rest of the world of secretly instigating the Syrian uprising with ulterior motives--unless GW Bush has already claimed credit for that too.  Experts will acknowledge that what actually started the Syrian uprising was common to other "Arab Spring" uprisings--a population explosion resulting in millions of semi-educated jobless young men, combined with climate change--i.e., the worst long-term drought in several hundred years that drove 3 million starving farmers and herders into extreme poverty and into the city slums, combined with the brutal indifference of a wealthy, incompetent, totalitarian dictator who kept his money in various secret off-shore accounts and avoided making his tax returns available to the public.  In terms of new trends, this war will likely cause horses and wagons to become the new "retro chic" mode of travel for a few wealthy landowners in the U.S., and natural gas powered buses will become popular for others.  Also, the obesity epidemic will come to an end as the pendulum swings.

e) HEADLINE:  UNITED STATES SOON TO BECOME MAFIA STATE
A study released Thursday says that just over 1000 individual donors (0.00033% of the population) account for 94% of the $230 million raised by super PACs. Just 47 people account for more than half (57.1 percent) of this total amount from individual donors. And a single person, Sheldon Adelson, has verbally committed to as much as $100 million (a pittance for him) or an "unlimited amount" to fund Mitt Romney ads to defeat Obama and presumably buy a new justice department. (Adelson is a multi-billionaire casino mogul currently under investigation for money laundering and bribery. Also, his former Sands China CEO has accused him of promoting prostitution, working with mafia figures, bullying banks and potentially violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by putting a government official on his payroll.)

ON THE BRIGHT SIDE:  As vice president, Adelson will be able to throw some great parties.  Since he's made a lot of money and knows about business, he and Romney will be able to fix our problems and the trickle down effect will "make America strong."*
*smelling

f)  HEADLINE:  EXPERTS SAY WORLD ECONOMY A PONZI SCHEME
This video discusses exponential growth curves that inevitably become unsustainable.  (The internet is full of such "paid advertisement" headlines--and these invariably predict the callapse of the monetary and financial system, and end with some teaser messages regarding "hot stocks" that will benefit from the crisis.)  Actually, the concept of unsustainable exponential growth in (1) the derivatives market, high frequency trading, hedge funds and other financial innovations, (2) government debt, (3) oil and (4) food production and (5) water usage followed by a crash does make sense.  Few people would deny the inevitability of such a crash, and few prognosticators of future events are ever wrong--just "early".  Unfortunately, a prediction is rarely useful without an accurate timeframe.
ON THE BRIGHT SIDE:  This is an opportunity for all of you to make lots of money!  We can all get rich!  Just make sure your broker of those "hot stocks" doesn't become involved in the total collapse, and that the companies you invest in are able to deliver your dividends in gold bullion (or chocolate bars) via donkey if necessary. 

Aaahh....the Irony!

Definition of irony:  "a word meaning, emotion, attitude, belief, circumstance or outcome that is opposite to what would have been expected."

Here are some examples of irony:

Most ironic television news headline, Most ironic memoir, Most ironic car name, Most ironic signs, Most ironic deaths in history, Top 10 ironic ads in history

Life is full of irony.  But perhaps nowhere else are there more examples of irony than in politics.  Here are some recent instances for your reading "pleasure":

1.  The most conservative and anti-American of Egypt’s Islamist presidential candidates was barred from running because his mother was a U.S. citizen. 

2.  Getting into the NAACP convention required its attendees to show a government-issued photo ID.   The press had to show two forms of photo ID, a government-issued ID (i.e. drivers license) in addition to their press identification.   Speaking at the convention, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the Texas voter ID law would harm minorities.

3.  A new super-PAC was formed whose purpose is to support candidates who want to limit super-PAC contributions.)

4.  In another example of money in politics, the senate banking committee--whose congressmen received $582,000 in campaign contributions from JP Morgan--were in charge of "grilling" CEO Jamie Dimon on the London Whale derivative trading fiasco.  "A vast majority of the Senators at the hearing ... repeatedly praised Dimon’s wisdom and executive acuity while politely soliciting his opinion on how he thought his own bank should be regulated..."  Yes, this is the same bank that was "hand-slapped" with a paltry $135 million fine for helping Enron commit fraud; the same bank that settled a $2 billion shareholder lawsuit alleging they underwrote Worldcom's bonds without discovering an $11 billion fraud at the (now bankrupt) company; the same bailed-out bank that is currently gambling in the global casino with an eye-popping $70 trillion in derivatives (compare this to the U.S. GDP of $15 trillion and a world GDP of $70 trillion); not to mention a bank soon to be embroiled in the Libor scandal.

5.  An article highlighted unemployed Tea Party activists who are on government assistance

6.  "Drill baby drill" may have become  the most ironic political slogan, since oil companies are not drilling despite plenty of on- and off-shore leases with no drilling moratoriums.

7.  Here's an ironic twist in which Mitt Romney's most important credential has become his biggest liability--his experience at "Bane" capital and the unanswered questions swirling around it.  Perhaps an even bigger irony is that a recent poll suggests 60% of people nevertheless think he will be "better at the economy" due to his business experience.  Those who have looked into his business experience at Bain Capital cite examples of looting companies via leveraged buyouts as well as Romney's use of off-shore tax havens.

8.  Surely the biggest political irony of 2012--and perhaps the mother of all political ironies--is Obomnycare.  Perhaps "self regulation" of the financial industry takes second place honors.

9.  Of course, Romney has flipped on virtually every issue--not just health care--for the sake of votes.  It might be argued that in 2002, Mitt Romney was more liberal than Barack Obama.

10.  Speaking of disaster relief, hurricane Katrina presented many layers of irony.  (Much of the following material is taken from this article.)

• Republicans are often portrayed as being "stronger" in times of military need or in times of disaster. In fact, Bush presided over a disastrously inept emergency response that changed the world's opinion of the U.S. as a developed country. As quoted from this source, Bush first had scientists warning him days in advance of hurricane Katrina that he was about to have a major disaster on his hands. Bush did next to nothing to prepare for the hurricane, and next to nothing in response afterwards for days. In fact, President Bush chose to remain on vacation for the first several days of the crisis, and only took time to view the destruction out the window of Air Force One, on his way back to Washington D.C. from his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Bush left dealing with Katrina to Michael Brown, who was completely unqualified for the job, and only got it thanks to the help of his neighbor Joe Allbaugh. And when the media began to howl about Brown’s miserable performance, and his padded resume, Bush defended him saying “Brownie” was doing a “heckuva job”. Eventually, Brown’s failure became so undeniable that the Bush administration caved in and fired him, finally making a wiser choice by putting Vice Admiral Thad Allen in charge. Nevertheless, for many people, this was not so much an indictment of the administration as it was just another example of big government's ineptness.
• But there's a deeper level of irony here. According to this article, homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wanted to take command of disaster relief on the day before landfall, but Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco refused. Federal response was hindered because the law gave first authority to state and local authorities...State and local efforts—particularly in New Orleans, and Louisiana more broadly—interfered with what actions the federal government could actually take. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was late in ordering an evacuation and did not allow the use of school buses for evacuation, which could have saved hundreds of lives. President Bush had no power to change that decision. So "inept big government" actually had its hands tied by the "efficient state and local governments". 
• But wait! We find an even deeper level of irony as we keep digging. The Bush Administration had worked to apply the principles of small government to FEMA, while introducing privatization and decentralization to emergency management. President Bush's first FEMA director lamented in Senate testimony that “Federal disaster assistance may have evolved into both an over sized entitlement program and a disincentive to effective State and local risk management,” and suggested that certain disaster management responsibilities, such as providing food and shelter to the displaced, should be delegated to faith-based charities. (We found out how well this worked.) In March 2004, former FEMA head James Lee Witt testified before Congress that “the ability of our nation to prepare and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded ". . . . I hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders and first-responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared.”" Add to this the appointment of political cronies with no experience in disaster-response, mis-use of the the national guard in the Iraq war, diminishment of the status of FEMA by incorporating it under the department of homeland security, funding cuts to disaster planning as well to the local and state governments that were supposed to be more efficient, and you have an administration that was damnably culpable (pardon the pun).
• As usual, there's the "big government spending" versus "bigger government spending" irony as well. Pay now or pay later. The failure of the New Orleans levees was preceded by a failure of environmental protection and planning. Due to the vast network of levees, navigational channels, and oil and gas infrastructure, the Louisiana coastal plain has been losing 6600 acres of wetlands per year--wetlands that would normally provide protection from hurricanes. In addition, the channels provided a highway for storms to sweep inland. In 1998, state and federal agencies, with the participation of a diverse group of local churches, scientists, environmentalists, and fishermen, developed “Coast 2050: Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana,” which offered a host of ecosystem restoration strategies. Its $14 billion price tag was never funded, and the President’s 2005 Energy Bill provided only $540 million--a relative pittance--for Louisiana'’s coastal restoration over four years. Also, over a period of many years, scientists had predicted that a strong storm could breach the levees, and some had predicted what appears to be the precise sequence of breaches that flooded the city. The failure to protect New Orleans resulted from the failure of the federal government to fund badly needed improvements once those limitations were recognized. (The Iraq war had taken center stage--a war that ended up costing $2-3 trillion, depending on who you ask.) The cost (to the government) of rebuilding New Orleans was approximately $87 billion--far more than the cost of the coastal restoration and levee improvement proposals. Timely "big government spending" on those proposals would have been--in retrospect--a fantastic deal. Instead, while we were busy killing people in Iraq, dead bodies were floating in New Orleans.
• Makers of FEMA trailers used after Hurricane Katrina paid $43 million to those suffering from health issues associated with them. Apparently, the cheap particle board and poor ventilation resulted in occupants' excessive exposure to formaldehyde. The trailers were deemed "uninhabitable" and decommissioned. But apparently, some of them nevertheless showed up again, this time as temporary housing for some BP oil spill cleanup workers. Evidently, the price was right. (In the interest of fairness, it should be said that by this time there was probably less outgassing of formaldehyde.)
• Hurricane Katrina was cited by experts as another possible example of evidence for global warming, which is associated with increased frequency and intensity of severe weather events, among other things. Many of us will still debate whether global warming exists and whether there is anything we can do about it, while at the same time we are stocking up on bottled water and other emergency supplies so we will be prepared for floods, drought, earthquakes and other catastrophes predicted for the "end times."
• In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush declared that a “Great City Will Rise Again.” This was a platitude that was apparently not followed up with any actual planning or decison making on his part. Seven years after Katrina, New Orleans is still two different cities. Areas like the lower 9th ward have all the same problems as before, including the highest crime rate in the world (40% higher than before Katrina), extreme black poverty, and homeless people living in abandoned houses. No definitive decision was ever made as to how to handle this area of the city, whether or not to prohibit rebuilding, what to do with the abandoned houses, etc. In the end, people were allowed to rebuild, but with minimal help or coordination from the government. Thus, a fantastic opportunity to reshape the city and encourage its inhabitants to rebuild on higher ground was missed, and today these parts of the city are still struggling, with millions being spent on upkeep of empty lots. Instead of spending $127 billion on rebuilding parts of New Orleans that never should have been rebuilt, the government could have used the same money to reimburse each affected resident of New Orleans--an average of $425,000 (!) per person--to go buy a house and live somewhere else.
• During his initial Presidential campaign, Mr. Obama promised "[I] will ensure that New Orleans has a levee and pumping system to protect the city against a 100-year storm by 2011, with the ultimate goal of protecting the entire city from a Category 5 storm." By August 2011, that promise had largely been fulfilled. This is perhaps the only aspect of hurricane Katrina that lacked irony.