Math is Hard

So John McCain has promised to balance the budget, but has also promised a series of lavish tax cuts for the rich, defense spending hikes, and endless wars that makes balancing the budget impossible. So far, so good, just a little of the old straight talk. But then for some reason he actually provided the Washington Post editorial page with a budget plan, perhaps counting on their love of Bush/McCain-style foreign policy to cause them to forget how to add, resulting in an editorial about how their numbers are nonsense.

In a reality development, the video professor is offering to help McCain learn how to use a computer:

Between the built-in calculator, and widely available spreadsheet and financial planning software, maybe once the professor's through with him McCain will have his budget problems figured out.

Photo by Flickr user Akash_k used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

John McCain, after seeing the Video Professor's commercial: "What is that little shiny circle he's holding? A coaster?"

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | July 14, 2008 10:26 AM

That's hilarious. Very well spliced.

Oh, and not to be a Canadian troll, but the video professor always did remind me of NDP leader Jack Layton, in both appearance and message.

Posted by Khaled | July 14, 2008 10:28 AM

So much for Republicans being the party of "fiscal conservatives". More like "tax and spend conservatives".

Posted by freddiemac | July 14, 2008 10:44 AM

Math is hard, but not as hard as my cock.

Posted by Skwla | July 14, 2008 10:48 AM

Obama is, of course, also promising fiscal irresponsibility, potentially on a much larger scale.

More bothersome is that both candidates riff on CO2-based global warming. If our government decides to take further action on cutting CO2, the poorest will be hit hardest.

Some of the latest news out of Germany is that the the country's paper industry is likely to close down or move abroad.

A major electricity producer (RWE) figures that Cap'n Trade will drive up the government-induced electric price increases by another 50 per cent. Interestingly, RWE looks to close down some "filthy" coal generation plants in favor of building natural gas plants. The natural gas has to be imported from Russia. The Russians are thus shutting down their own natural gas plants to sell this resource at a higher price to Germany. The Russians plan to replace these cleaner natural gas plant with -- you guessed it -- coal electric plants!

Hooray, Europe saves the world! Truly a model for America's progressive Obaman future!

There's also new evidence provided by those hated scientific heretics -- physicists ("But it does move!") -- that global warming will climb by a staggering 0.6 degrees centigrade if we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 50 years.

But still the press insists on backing the massive power grab by politicians of both parties contemplating punitive Cap'n Trade legislation.

Posted by MarkG | July 14, 2008 10:49 AM

If our government decides to take further action on cutting CO2, the poorest will be hit hardest.

Make blanket statements much?

Posted by goethean | July 14, 2008 11:01 AM

Pork busting is hard, let's go shopping!

Shorter MarkG: Save Germany's paper! Vote McCain!

Posted by Reality Man | July 14, 2008 11:05 AM

If our government decides to take further action on cutting CO2, the poorest will be hit hardest.

That certainly is a viable prediction of possible political-economic consequences of many approaches to CO2 control.

But all approaches are political-economic in nature, and it does not have to be done so that the greatest burdens fall upon the poorest -- although, yes, given the way politics & economics tend to work in the U.S. under an upper-class dominated power system, I wouldn't be surprised.

Posted by El Cid | July 14, 2008 11:12 AM

"Obama is, of course, also promising fiscal irresponsibility, potentially on a much larger scale."

Looks like math is hard for MarkG also!

Posted by freddiemac | July 14, 2008 11:20 AM

If our government decides to take further action on cutting CO2, the poorest will be hit the hardest.

When someone who is speaking from the perspective as a supporter of an ideology based around hating and deriding the poor and turning a blind eye to their suffering and angrily opposing any initiatives to help the poor makes this sort of argument above, it's not exactly particularly credible.

These are people who don't give a damn about the poor and worry that anything done to help the poor will hurt them. Rushing to the defense of the poor under these circumstances -- and these circumstances only -- seems a bit disingenuous. I suspect he's just making stuff up or trying to come up with some way to make an argument that he thinks will be convincing to liberals.

If you want to help the poor, help the poor. You know what might help the poor? Preventing environmental destruction that the poor will be least able to buy their way out of.

Posted by Tyro | July 14, 2008 11:21 AM

You onw a frozen rooster, Skwla?

Posted by rea | July 14, 2008 11:40 AM

It's probably best to ignore right wing trolls who suddenly discover 'the poor' to use as a political weapon. They've never given a shit about the poor and never will give a shit about them.

It's our side that's been battling for decades to provide the poor with a reasonably secure safety net, while their side has fought it tooth and nail. They only scream 'DEH POOR!' when our side wants to deal directly with peak oil issues or you know, not make the earth uninhabitable.

Posted by mike | July 14, 2008 11:42 AM

MarkG said... Obama is, of course, also promising fiscal irresponsibility, potentially on a much larger scale.

Of course, organizations that can actually do math have reviewed McCain's plans and found them to be twice as costly as Obama's.

But blanket statements with no factual basis are much more fun. Just ask the McCain campaign.

Posted by LFC | July 14, 2008 11:57 AM

I see that MarkG still believes it's mid-January 2000.

Posted by SavageView | July 14, 2008 12:00 PM

Re Mark G

Mr. Mark G quotes a paper by Christopher Monckton which was published in a non-peer reviewed forum. Sir Christopher Monckton is considered a whackjob by most climate scientists and has no more credibility then his fellow physicist Fred Singer.

Posted by SLC | July 14, 2008 12:12 PM

Can we assume that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are simply receiving kind words from the government? You know, a "mental bailout" for their "mental recession"?

Bush's policies that created the real estate bubble have failed. Bush's policies that destroyed the U.S. dollar have failed. Phil Gramm's deregulatory push has failed. Republican tax cuts have skyrocketed our deficit without giving the economy any type of firm base. Bush's war in Iraq has drained our treasury, not to mention killed over 4,000 and wounded tens of thousands of our troops. In fact, the metrics of the Bush recovery show everything was weak except for corporate profits.

So with all this failure, what does John McCain want to do? More of the same.

Posted by LFC | July 14, 2008 12:12 PM

Attached is a link to a review of some publications by Sir Christopher Monckton. The good viscount might best be described as the Peter Duesberg of global climate change.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/

Posted by SLC | July 14, 2008 12:18 PM

What the hell is "peanuckle"?
Right at the end of the video.

Posted by David | July 14, 2008 1:07 PM

David,

I can't view the linky but I believe it is referring to the card game Pinochle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochle

Posted by freddiemac | July 14, 2008 1:21 PM

There's a mistake in the solution to #25. In the second line, the upper limit of integration should be 2 not pi/2. It is somewhat odd that the author correctly adjusted the lower limit of integration from 0 to 1 but did not do so for the upper limit. (The student does ultimately get the correct answer.)

Also, the final answer to #24 is also incorrect, as the student forgot to substitute u = x^2 + 4x into the final answer.

It's a shame because this student does a better job of documenting his/her work than most do, but still fails to notice his/her relatively minor mistakes.

Posted by Mike | July 15, 2008 2:39 PM