WASHINGTON - House Republicans voted to cut student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices as various committees scrambled to piece together $50 billion in budget cuts.

Afterwards, Republicans gathered outside the capital for a rousing game of kick the cripple.

Most of you know that Alan Greenspan is retiring. A select few people know I’m not very sad about this, as I think he has an undeservedly wonderful reputation, and has been most helpful when he’s done nothing. That said, I was quite curious when I heard that President Koko was going to nominate Greenspan’s successor. The tension was palpable, after delightfully well qualified Harriet “George, you’re the best governer ever!” Miers, who was he going to name next?!?!?

Was it going to be Ofelia, Spot (Who’s a good chairman? Who’s a good chairman? You are! You’re a good charman!), Barney, or perhaps George’s bank teller in Crawford?

No, instead he chose someone competent, Ben S. Bernanke. The S stands for Shalom, making Mr. Bernake a Jew, and thus genetically qualified to do anything involving money. For the short while it’s up, the page linked above has Ben’s e-mail and office phone number on it, should you want to give him a ring and discuss monetary policy, or the World Series, or the like.

As I’m a witty and interesting person, damn it. But it has been a very long work-week, followed by a weekend of sleeping and recovery, all of which has left me devoid of wit or interest. So instead I’ll link to the best thing I’ve found of late; a tutorial on how to make Jesus toast. Because everyone should wake up with Jesus.

So today on Craigslist, I read this post:

Brains, Breeding, Bounty - 21

I am a recent Wellesley College grad, but very much the old-fashioned Wellesley alum (think Mona Lisa Smile), not the modern feminist. Presently, I am a legal assistant and realestate agent. I am looking for an old-fashioned gentleman (30 - 40) who has the means and knows how to treat a woman. I enjoy theater, movies, museums, weekend getaways, tea time at the Four Seasons, charity benefits, etc. I am ultimately looking for a long term relationship that leads to marriage and children (and a few dachschunds running around)

I am 5′9″ with short auburn hair and dark green eyes.

Such a posting really does deserve a reply.

Dear BBB,

As one of the many wealthy older gentlemen that regularly peruse Craigslist, I wanted to take a moment to tell you how intrigued I was by your ad. As you clearly have already gathered, there are few things more attractive to us than women interested only in our money. Your complete lack of life experience, coupled with your desire not to ever hold a real job and live off my income, are even more alluring. Combine all that with the fairly evident implications of your not mentioning anything about your weight or body type, and you’re near irresistible.

Oh how I long to have tea with you at the Four Seasons, my rubenesque darling! Our conversations could be so wonderfully vapid! I could go on about my day, and you could listen, lump-like, increasing your girth with each delicious hors dourve!

Such are the things dreams are made of.

I do hope you reply,
Charles G. Wentworth III

When Tysabri was pulled from the market, I didn’t have a forum to comment. Now I do.

I’m almost always annoyed when drugs are pulled from the market for safety reasons. (It also annoys me that I can’t prescribe for myself, but that’s a separate issue.) As long as the proper information is contained in the prescribing information, there’s no reason to make a drug unavailable. (Of note: this was not the case with the cox-2 class (Vioxx, Celebrex, etc.), where drugs with little to no benefit, and some clear detriments, over the older NSAIDs were marketed heavily to both the public and professionals promulgating false or misleading information which often obfuscated the negative effects and costs of the drugs.) With Tysabri, the drug had some clear benefits for people with a potentially debilitating disease. Yes, it was linked to a few instances of death, but I for one, if I had MS, would gladly exchange a quantifiable risk of death with the opportunity to live life fully. The problem is, with the drug company’s removal of the drug, I, or at least the theoretical I, can not make that choice, and that frustrates the hell out of me.

Chemicals, even those which show up in placebo controlled trials as have little or no statistical benefit, have very different effects on different groups of people. What is helpful to some can be highly detrimental to others, even within the same class (see the SSRIs for example). The responsible thing to do is to provide as much information as possible, and leave it up to the end user to decide what risks their willing to take.

In my youthful college days, I would occasionally note the efficiency of the staff, and by I mean the hoi polloi, not the non-professorial administration. What made me note the staff’s efficiency, apart for their lack of it, was that this college that I attended was the largest private employer in the entire city, the fifth largest city in the US. This would be understandable were the college enormous, but while by no means small, neither was it a university-industrial complex.

What I came to realize was that the utter incompetence of the staff was the reason for the high number of people the university had to employ. It took five of them to do a job that a single graduate of said university to do. Taking this a step further, I developed a new idea: Brain Subsidies .

The gist of the theory states: to reduce unemployment, I, being smart and capable, should be paid not to work. By removing me from the workforce, at least five or six other incompetent people would be required to take my place. Just as we pay farmers not to grow corn to subsidize the price of crops, we should pay me (and other like me) not to work, to maintain a livable wage and keep unemployment low.

Think of the benefits! With all of the free time given to these newly liberated intelligencia, the art scene would flourish. Plays, writing, entertainment, technology, all would benefit from the spare productivity of the brilliant, all while bettering society!

I know, it’s a tough sell. But it’s so obviously beneficial. Anyone feel like starting a movement?

Recently Connecticut’s civil union law came into force, which is good, but also somewhat disappointing, because it’s not a full-fledged marriage law.

Jesus and I haven’t got along well since third grade, (It’s a long story, but there was a pool party, and Jesus didn’t invite me, and we started hanging out with different crowds, and I got pretty close with Buddha, at least until the big recess fight of 1984.) so I don’t claim to be up on his latest thinking, but when I did know him, I don’t remember him thinking very much about gay people, let alone how much he didn’t want them to get married. So when his people start talking about how much he dislikes the gays, I’m a bit confused.

More importantly, I don’t see how it’s any of their business. Marriage may be a holy-sacrament, and sanctified by your god. Great. Happy birthday. But that’s marriage in your church/temple/mosque. What we’re talking about is govement’ marriage, which brings with it certain civil entanglements. It’s an entirely separate beast. Perhaps the best solution is for the government only to grant civil unions, and leave the marriage racquet to the churches, but for now, it’s in it, which means you people should just learn to wrap your heads around the idea of having gay people be “married” by the government, even if they’re not “married” by your church. I know. It’s difficult. You have such tiny little heads.

Furthermore, with regards to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, it’s the government’s role to preserve liberty, not to restrict it. Apart from the now repealed eighteenth amendment, the constitution has always served to protect American’s rights, not to take them away. To alter such a document so fundamentally is truly and abominable concept, and not only should any of such an amendment’s supporters be stripped of their American citizenship, they should be shot, just for being idiots.

I have an even better idea; let’s enact a constitutional ban on stupid people breeding.

I like dating. I honestly do. I like meeting new people. I like learning about them, bantering with them, testing them, flirting with them. What I don’t like is finding them, because meeting one or two with whom I’m compatible almost certainly means meeting one or two hundred with whom I’m far less so. It’s not even that I’m unreasonably picky; it’s just that I’m fairly unique, which means that those for whom I’m searching are too. (This is why, btw, I’m a fan of online dating. It makes it far easier to scan through hundreds of people than would be feasible at a physical location.)

Given the seemingly quixotic task before me, it seemed only fitting for me to be a total geek and quantify the situation. After doing some simple mathematical attrition, it’s apparent the odds are distinctly not stacked in my favor. So I’m thinking of a billboard. Perhaps something on Beacon Street, with my smiling face, a googlesque brain teaser, and an offer of a prize. Maybe a free sandwich.

Criteria		Population	Graph
Number of people in the greater Boston metropolitan area:		5,800,000
Percent age 18-30: 26%		1,526,473
	I’m assuming an even distribution from 15-34, and then cutting out 15-17 and 31-34, which results in a reduction of the datable population to 1,526,473. See this for further details.
Percent single and uninvolved: 20%		305,295
	This is real guesswork. Only about 20-30 percent of that population is married, but I couldn’t find any statistics on what percentage of the “single” population is actively seeking, and what percentage is involved. In the end, I took an educated guess, reducing the datable population to 305,294.
Percent “above average” (aka not fat): 50%		152,647
	Of course, everyone is above average (and yes, I know, 50% can’t be above average, but I’m rounding the 49.99999% up), but that aside, all I’m really asking for is not fat. Sadly, in America, this reduces the datable population to 152,647.
Percent in the top 1% of the IQ bell curve: 1%		1,526
	I know, this is demanding, but it’s a necessary component to compatibility, not just an arbitrary requirement because I think smart girls are hot (which they are). No, this doesn’t mean one needs to have had an IQ test in order for one to date me. It does mean one has to be really freaking smart. And then there were 1,526.
Percent of that 1% that’s female: 25%		382
	I couldn’t find figures for the top 1%, which is around 140, depending on the scale, but if at 125 we’re at a 2:1 ratio, and at 155, a 5.5:1, I’m guessing 4:1 isn’t that far off. For what it’s worth, I think this is more a societal function than a genetic one, but in the end, it doesn’t matter. Only 381 left. See this for reference.
Percent of that has a sense of humor: 50%		191
	Everyone claims they have a sense of humor. Many, however, do not. I’ll be really generous and say 50% do, leaving us with a grand total of…….191.

One hundred and ninety one potentially compatible people in the Boston area. If we assume that Boston has an usually high number of younger smart people, which it does, that number might rise somewhat, but not much.

So I wrote this, and will shortly post it on Craigslist. Disco Stu needs to advertise.