It's hard to imagine how one could credibly make Twinkies kosher.
It just seems antithetical to the whole point behind a Twinkie.
they seem to have been kosher in some places for a brief period of time.
I will miss Drake's Cakes, though. Hats off to Funny Bones...
also had union problems..
Hostess did have union problems, but I think they are solved now.
Dec 19 2012 5:22am from dothebart @uncnsrd
I crunched those numbers and came to some conclusions:
Across the whole dataset (excluding the records that are incomplete), adding in GDP per capita (purchasing power parity basis) data mostly from the World Bank, there is a strongly significant (1% level, using a log-transformed linear model) relationship between income and gun homicides. The gun ownership rate also provides additional explanatory power for the gun homicide rate, in conjunction with income-per-capita, but is not significant on its own.
These overall relatioships hold up, at a less significant level, when limiting the dataset to the 50 highest-income countries.
The United States, in particular, is getting close to +2 standard deviations above the expectation for our level of income (omitting the gun ownership rate from the model.) In the 50-country dataset, we rank 3rd for statistically-unexplained gun homicides by that metric, behind only the Bahamas (2nd) and Trinidad/Tobago (who takes 1st.)
We have more gun violence than our rich-country peers. What's the answer? I don't know, but "move to Japan" looks like a plausible option.
Oh, new insanelygreat(tm) results. Income ineequality (as the GINI coefficient) explains dothebart's gun homicide statistics far better than either income per capita or the gun ownership rate. Previously-mentioned results continue to hold: both are better predictors than the gun ownership rate.
So much of gun violence is explained by income inequality, that in the 104-country dataset I'm looking at, the US is "only" 0.96 standard deviations above the mean when the model includes the Gini coefficient and income-per-capita, but not the gun ownership rate...
Directly proportional would be a wet dream for the people who want more gun-confiscation *and* more wealth redistribution.
The natural log of gun homicide rate is directly proportional, in my 103-country dataset, to the Gini coefficient. The relationship holds up, maintains significance that is, when you cut down the dataset as far as only the 38 highest-income countries. Beyond that, it's lost in the noise. The reason for this is that the higher-income countries tend to have low inequality, so when you filter down to high-income countries you're also removing the trend on Gini.
This really shouldn't be surprising: the poor will always steal from the rich that surround them, violently if necessary. The surprising part for me was simply that the (relative) level of inequality is a better predictor than the (absolute) level of income, for the full 103-country set. This doesn't speak well of the human race; it hints that violence has its origins in what we *want* rather than what we *need*.
And it's not a wet dream, either. Data like this is always ambiguous. Some people will argue that if the relationship doesn't hold up within a smaller group of higher-income countries, it's not clear enough, and they might be right. (Sadly for them, within that smaller group, the gun ownership rate emerges as a strong predictor, but I digress.)
I've always been anti-gun-control. Heller was rightly decided; the 2nd amendment is not in danger of being overturned; handguns need to remain legal. Not a big fan of personal nukes, RPGs; find it hard to justify assault rifle ownership. The reason I ran the numbers was I wanted to show that income (or lack thereof) is the predominant reason for violent crime, in the big picture across the globe, NOT the rate of gun ownership. The data shows pretty clearly that gun ownership is a tertiary predictor at best, for the full 103-country dataset. It only starts to have predictive power within the rich countries, and then of course the US is skewing the results...
Interesting, though, that the US is a category buster. We have first-world income and near-third-world inequality. Sort the data by income and you see that, of the countries with our level of inequality or higher, only two make higher income than we do, and the rest are generally below the $15K/year level.
"The results were unambiguous: when income inequality was higher, so was
the rate of homicide. Income inequality alone explained 74% of the
variance in murder rates and half of the aggravated assaults."
--Eric Michael Johnson in Scientific American
I'd ask what exactly they were wanted FOR, but it would probably just show my disinterest in reading the article past the first 3 sentences.
And, sadly, they probably will get away with it.
Jan 3 2013 11:09am from zooer @uncnsrd
“Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2012
Still pushing the hatchet job over Benghazi, I see. If there was any substance to it, Romney would have hit it hard during the final debate. Of course there wasn't any substance to it, so he didn't follow up.
But since you're a libertarian, I wouldn't expect you to understand ;)
Romney was suppose to lose. (paranoid mode) He didn't hit hard on anything,the GOP are pansies.
They're the only viable right-leaning (or even down-leaning in the Nolan-chart sense) party.
If you believe in libertarianism, you have a deontological duty to vote Republican.