Why do we say “litmus test” for a pass/fail test against politicians when, at least from my experience, litmus paper is used to measure degrees of acidity, not just a true/false result about whether something is acidic?
I’m not a chemist, but as I remember litmus tests, it was a green piece of paper, which dipped in an acid turns red, or dipped in a base turns blue. So, I guess the analagy is that if you take a politician (ie the litmus paper), dip him in an issue (ie the unknown solution), if he’d decide one way he could be labeled a conservative (ie the paper turns red), if he’d go the other he could be labeled a liberal (ie the paper turns blue). But, as I said, I’m no chemist. They could be talking about throwing acid on someone to see what color they turn. No idea.
Scotty,
Yes, but the paper can turn different shades of red or blue which indicates different acidic levels (or base levels). At some point, a solution is declared a base or an acid, but there are still degrees.
Classic litmus-test paper came in two flavors: one for acid, and one for base. The color change was pretty much binary; one type of paper would tell you if your solution’s pH was beow 4.5, and the other would tell you if it was above 8.3, but not how far below or above.
Modern pH test paper is more analog, and changes color in many steps across a range of acidity / alkalinity.
Ooooooh! I know I know!
It is because chemical reaction tests don’t really give analog results: either the reaction happens, or it doesn’t, depending on the acidity of the liquid tested. The original litmus papers just gave blue for basic (above 7.0) or pink for acidic (below 7.0), if I remember right. IOW, it was a digital output, compared to the tests of a judge, was he as conservative as we wanted, or not? I think the pink-producing chemical on the paper was plain old phenolphthaline solution, remember the first experiment with every chemistry set? You put a clear acid in a jar, and some phenolphthaline solution in another jar, and told your Mom, “watch while I make blood from two clear liquids!” and poured them in together.
Of course, even in the old days if you needed to know if the acidity was high ENOUGH, say, under 4.0, there would be other pigment-producing chemicals that you could use to see if that more extreme chemical reaction took place. Nowadays you kids are spoiled with litmus paper that produces what looks like an analog result (matching the color on a scale of colors, right?). I expect they do this by using chemicals that only take distinctive colors at a given acidity, and otherwise they just wash out or turn clear or something.
Then a litmus test – in the eyes of the MSM – means that either the person is a Right-Wing Nut or a Left-Wing Nut.
That makes perfect sense, if you think about it. Either they’re interviewing some Right-Wing retard no one wants to see living (usually a leader of the KKK, Aryan nation, or some other wasted space) or some Left-Wing retard that no one takes seriously (usually Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry).
Ya know – tryin’ to figure out women is easier than tryin’ to figure out the MSM or the Left. At least with women, there’s a reward for being right (as opposed to left).
Personally, I think it should be called a “Wind Sock” test. That way, any given politician can tell which way the wind is blowing and follow en suit. Does this make any more sense?
Actually litmust paper refers only to the papers that have been dyed witht the red/blue litmust indicator.
There is also pH paper, which is yellow for neutral, but turns varying colors depending on acidity/alkalinity (red through green, respectively, if I remember correctly).
Le first!
I have no idea.
Since when does politics ever make sense?
It still works for politicians, but it’s spelled “ass-idity.” Kind of means how frigging dumb is this guy anyway?
I’m not a chemist, but as I remember litmus tests, it was a green piece of paper, which dipped in an acid turns red, or dipped in a base turns blue. So, I guess the analagy is that if you take a politician (ie the litmus paper), dip him in an issue (ie the unknown solution), if he’d decide one way he could be labeled a conservative (ie the paper turns red), if he’d go the other he could be labeled a liberal (ie the paper turns blue). But, as I said, I’m no chemist. They could be talking about throwing acid on someone to see what color they turn. No idea.
Scotty,
Yes, but the paper can turn different shades of red or blue which indicates different acidic levels (or base levels). At some point, a solution is declared a base or an acid, but there are still degrees.
Classic litmus-test paper came in two flavors: one for acid, and one for base. The color change was pretty much binary; one type of paper would tell you if your solution’s pH was beow 4.5, and the other would tell you if it was above 8.3, but not how far below or above.
Modern pH test paper is more analog, and changes color in many steps across a range of acidity / alkalinity.
I much prefer PaleoMedic’s definition…
Ooooooh! I know I know!
It is because chemical reaction tests don’t really give analog results: either the reaction happens, or it doesn’t, depending on the acidity of the liquid tested. The original litmus papers just gave blue for basic (above 7.0) or pink for acidic (below 7.0), if I remember right. IOW, it was a digital output, compared to the tests of a judge, was he as conservative as we wanted, or not? I think the pink-producing chemical on the paper was plain old phenolphthaline solution, remember the first experiment with every chemistry set? You put a clear acid in a jar, and some phenolphthaline solution in another jar, and told your Mom, “watch while I make blood from two clear liquids!” and poured them in together.
Of course, even in the old days if you needed to know if the acidity was high ENOUGH, say, under 4.0, there would be other pigment-producing chemicals that you could use to see if that more extreme chemical reaction took place. Nowadays you kids are spoiled with litmus paper that produces what looks like an analog result (matching the color on a scale of colors, right?). I expect they do this by using chemicals that only take distinctive colors at a given acidity, and otherwise they just wash out or turn clear or something.
So, I guess that’s the answer: Traditionally, a litmus test gave a digital answer.
Then a litmus test – in the eyes of the MSM – means that either the person is a Right-Wing Nut or a Left-Wing Nut.
That makes perfect sense, if you think about it. Either they’re interviewing some Right-Wing retard no one wants to see living (usually a leader of the KKK, Aryan nation, or some other wasted space) or some Left-Wing retard that no one takes seriously (usually Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry).
Ya know – tryin’ to figure out women is easier than tryin’ to figure out the MSM or the Left. At least with women, there’s a reward for being right (as opposed to left).
There’s a chemical test paper to indicate whether Teddy Kennedy (D – driver’s seat of an Oldsmobile) is drunk. It never changes color.
It looks to me like the solution is to dip all of the politicians in acid and see what happens.
At first I thought PaleoMedic had it right, but old-dawgs’ sounds more fun.
Personally, I think it should be called a “Wind Sock” test. That way, any given politician can tell which way the wind is blowing and follow en suit. Does this make any more sense?
Actually litmust paper refers only to the papers that have been dyed witht the red/blue litmust indicator.
There is also pH paper, which is yellow for neutral, but turns varying colors depending on acidity/alkalinity (red through green, respectively, if I remember correctly).
Because, and I speak with authority because I am a chemistry teacher, they are stupid.