Month: October 2009

GOP to Troops: Drop Dead

Boehner Then:

“[T]here is a clear distinction between saying you support the troops and backing up those claims with genuine action. [Obama] once said ‘we shouldn’t play chicken with our troops’ when it comes to funding our troops in harm’s way, and [Hillary Clinton] urged General Petraeus at the start of the surge to request ‘every possible piece of equipment and resource necessary’ to keep our troops safe. These words turned into little more than empty rhetoric when both proceeded to vote against funding our troops last year [over policy disagreements subsidiary to the actual troop funding part of the bill].”

Boehner Now:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) are voting against the House/Senate fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill – because it contains hate crimes provisions designed to protect gays and lesbians. Boehner, speaking at his weekly press conference Thursday, said the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the defense bill was “an abuse of power” by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that sought to punish offenders for what they thought – and not what they did. He accused the speaker of pursuing her social agenda “on the backs” of the troops.

Boehner’s spokesman said “The record on supporting our troops is clear,”

Indeed it is. Indeed it is. John Boehner does not support the troops. He’s found cause to vote against the previous Afghanistan/Iraq appropriation (first link) and now the Defense authorization. He’s two for two. Whose rhetoric is empty now?

Antonin Scalia, Thinking Man

Salon reports some amazing cogitation on the part of Scalia:

[Peter Eliasberg, whose client objects to the cross suggests that] “a statue of a soldier which would honor all of the people who fought for America in World War I and not just the Christians.”

“The cross doesn’t honor non-Christians who fought in the war?” Scalia asks, stunned.

“A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins,” replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.

“It’s erected as a war memorial!” replies Scalia. “I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead.”

Eliasberg dares to correct him: “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”

“I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead,” thunders Scalia. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion!”

Truly the conservative intellectual at work.

The cross in question:

<![CDATA[// ]]>

I’m sure that many, if not most Jewish and Muslim veterans would look to this as a fitting memorial to their service in WWI… who could possibly view it in any other way!?! It defies belief.

Counting Calories

A recent study conducted in New York (with Newark serving as control) labeled menus with calorie content, and then questioned patrons whether they noticed the labels, and if they did: did they actually use them to make better choices?

As it turns out: not so much:

Those people that did notice the menu labels used them…to buy more calories. Not significant at this point, but disheartening to say the least. Sodium intake also increased.

I guess the answer is to label menus… but lie.

Ummm, huzzah for science!

So keep your guns, and buy more guns, and buy ammunition. […] Take back America. Don’t let them take the country into socialism. And I refer again, Hitler’s party was national socialism. […] And that’s what we are having here right now, which is bordering on Marxism.

Mike Huckabee, “man of God,” likely GOP presidential hopeful, probable nominee, and Fucktard

Drop a Dime

Absolutely fascinating Freakonomics…in which a little scamp of an aspiring economist runs right through the old saw about losing the penny like BJ McKay going through billboards. Turns out losing the penny alone doesn’t really help overall efficiency that much if we assume:

1. Some combination of coins must reach every integer value in [0,99].

2. Probability of a transaction resulting in value v is uniform from [0,99].

You could split some obvious hairs about (2), but (1) seems to me to be the real sticking point on getting rid of the penny: people see it as just another chance for everything to go up in price; everyone assumes they’ll always come out behind on any rounding scheme. And, let’s face it: everyone probably would.

So, what was the most efficient system? Prepare to be Obamazed:

The penny, 3-cent piece, 11-cent piece, 37-cent piece, and (1,3,11,38) are tied at 4.10 coins per transaction.

Now who could possibly argue with that arrangement? I DEMAND it be implemented. But, forseeing the loser, stick-in-the-mud attidudes that he’d receive once he announced that all payments to Death Panels are henceforth mandated to be rendered in 38-cent coins, the little scamp sorted down to some more reasonable options (among others):

(1,4,15,40) is the first “reasonable looking” combination, with 4.14 coins per transaction.
(1,3,10,35) also does well, with 4.16 coins per transaction.

[or, restricting ourselves to multiples of 5]

(1,5,15,35) at 4.50 coins.
(1,5,10,30) at 4.60 coins.

Fantastic. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, given the “lose the penny!” nature of conventional wisdom, what would you assume is the least worthwhile coin?

Why, it’s the dime, of course.

…losing the dime entirely only costs us ~0.8 coins per transaction in efficiency; it does the least good of the existing coins.

So: a two pronged attack is in order. We couple a bill that removes dimes from circulation whilst putting the serene visage of Reagan or Lord Jesus on the obverse…