Important News About Alzheimer's Patients

This is why the Onion rocks.

Trillin Poem

A TRANSCRIPT: PHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 9/11 COMMISSION AND THE WHITE HOUSE CONCERNING THE COMMISSION'S BLISTERING REPORT CARD ON HOW WELL ITS RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED

COMMISSION:
So firemen can talk to cops,
You must provide a frequency.
The fact that this has not been done
Is government delinquency.

WHITE HOUSE:
Iraq is coming right along.
We're confident we'll win this war.
The way to honor lads we've lost
Is to stick it out (and lose some more).

COMMISSION:
Disaster funds are handed out
By pork, not risk, and, by the way,
The loose nukes that so worried us
Are getting looser every day.

WHITE HOUSE:
Our troops are making progress now,
And trained Iraqis have increased.
We win battles that we fight.
We've taken some towns twice at least.

COMMISSION:
Still, airfreight cargo goes unchecked,
And information goes unshared.
We told you then, we tell you now:
The USA is unprepared!

WHITE HOUSE:
Saddam--that evil, awful man--
Is captured, living in a cell.
Democracy will spread from there.
The Middle East will soon be swell.

COMMISSION:
We have to say, upon reflection,
There's something wrong with this connection.

--Calvin Trillan,
26 December 2005
A Heckuva Job

McTiddie

The only thing entertaining to come from the eye noise that is Jerry Maguire.

Amen, Brother

In his Tuesday Morning Quarterback column of 10 August 2007, Gregg Easterbrook writes the following:

Turning to the United States Constitution, George W. Bush said in Washington in 2007, "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war." The Founding Fathers said in Philadelphia in 1789 [*], "The Congress shall have the power to ... declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." The founders were quite clear that they wanted Congress running wars, among other things declaring only Congress could approve funds "to raise and support armies" and that congressional approval for military spending might
last no longer than two years

What are "letters of marque and reprisal?" The writers of United States Constitution assumed the new nation would have a permanent navy but no standing army: If an army was needed, it would be raised and funded on a two-year basis. Yet the framers knew international circumstances might call for military action short of sending an army into battle. Letters of marque grant to mercenaries -- at the time, it was normal for nations to retain soldiers-for-hire -- the right to act in America's name for a specific purpose, such as taking back some thing or location seized by privateers. Letters of reprisal could confer on the Navy, or on mercenaries, color of the flag to conduct a specific retaliation in America's name. The modern meaning of "letters of marque and reprisal" is "commando raids and air strikes."

So the Founding Fathers did not merely grant Congress sole power to declare war -- they expected Congress to be involved in the conduct of war, by such means as issuing specific instructions regarding what could and could not be attacked on land or water. The Commander in Chief clause of the Constitution mainly serves to make clear that the executive is superior to the military -- the framers did not want the
U.S. military resisting civilian control, as did some European militaries of the era. Bush and other modern presidents of both parties have behaved as though the Commander in Chief clause locates in them unilateral authority for all use of force: the Founding Fathers would be horrified to learn that Bush and other modern
presidents act as though they have unchecked powers in matters of war. Here's
the text of the United States Constitution, which all Americans including our current president ought to take a few moments to familiarize themselves with.

*=Minor quibble--the constitution was written in 1787. It became the law of the land in 1788 by ratification and the government was seated in 1789.

Emphasis added

Kids

Thanks to Jonah Goldberg.

Miss Joy

Several weeks ago I received a call at work from my wife. Her friend since high school, Joy, had been taken to the hospital the night before. She had had an aneurysm that ruptured. She was rushed to the Neurological Center at Jefferson University Hospital where she was placed in a medically induced coma.
She lay in the coma for two and a half weeks as the doctors conducted tests and scans and adjusted her medicine to check her brain function. At first there was some initial optimism, they were reducing her medication and the swelling was reducing proportionally. However, it came to a level where every time they tried to reduce the medicine further, the swelling increased. This led the doctors to determine that there was significant, permanent damage.

On 08 July 2007 Joy passed away at the age of 37. She was a beautiful woman, a great wife and mother of three, and a true friend.

I have some great friends, with whom I don't spend enough time, and I've had great relationships throughout my life. But my wife has more than friends. We refer to them as the coven. They can be somewhat unpleasant to outsiders (or, more accurately, intruders) but with each other they share a relationship that defies simple explanation or wisdom. It has been my good fortune that they have accepted (or tolerated) me, and the members have all chosen mates well.

When word came of Joy's ill health, things were dropped immediately and a small contingent rushed to the hospital. This may not seem out of the ordinary, but there was an immediacy and coordination in their action: they acted out of friendship and sincerity; when they offered to her family anything, the family knew the honesty of the offer. And they complement each other remarkably. When one needed a shoulder to cry on, it was there; when someone needed an arm twisted, it was twisted. And even in a moment of crisis, sadness and anxiety not a cross word was said.

The loss of Joy has been devastating for all who had the honor of knowing her. I know the family, in due time, will come to grips with the tragedy. They are good people. My wife used to remark that when the coven would gather and the conversation would turn on their husbands, Joy used to apologize for not joining in; she had nothing to complain about. Her husband is indeed that fine of a man (he is "That Guy"), and they have three daughters that--well, I hope my own daughter is as good as any of them as she gets older.
As for the coven, they will also survive. It's been said that this will really hit them again on their next gathering. I am certain it will.

But there is no way out of that group. She may not attend physically, but Joy will be there.

Forever.

Finger Destiny?

According to this story, you can tell which section you'll do (or you did) better on in the SAT.
When I sat for the SAT, I was convinced that I would do better on the Verbal section than the Math; for myriad reasons. Namely that I had a few great English teachers and perhaps the world's worst pre-calc teacher who'd shaken every last bit of confidence I'd had in my mathematical ability clear out of me.
The short version of the article is that you'll do better on the Math if your ring finger in longer; better on the Verbal if your index finger is longer.
I had never really taken notice of which finger was longer than the other on my own hand, but of course I looked. My ring finger is a mite longer than my index finger.
I was as surprised at this as I was when, lo those many years ago, I opened the envelope containing my SAT results. I scored 5.2% higher in Math than Verbal. Whether my ring finger is 5.2% longer than my index is a detail I am not going to concern myself with.

The article goes on to posit that prenatal exposure to testosterone and estrogen determine finger length. Exposure to testosterone is known to make the ring finger longer.
This lends itself to another study of which I've heard that examined testosterone levels in Mathematics majors. Apparently there is no (or little) discrepancy between the sexes when it comes to mathematical ability or interest in the subject in prepubescent children. Upon the onset of puberty however, when the testosterone level in boys increases greatly, boys start to show better ability and interest where girls (again, typically not necessarily) tend to lose interest and grades start slipping below boys'.
This also, to those who study these things, may explain why Mathematics majors are overwhelmingly male.

This does not mean I subscribe to the theory that women are incapable of higher mathematics. But there is definite, empirical proof that hormone levels affect certain areas of the brain at certain stages of development, and that this will obviously affect one's ability in certain fields. Not, however, subject an individual to be excluded from a particular field due to sex.
I have a daughter, and if she's so inclined, I would be as proud as can be imagined if she chose to pursue an advanced degree in mathematics, regardless of whether her ring finger is longer than her index finger. These hormones, taken into account with family upbringing, quality (not cost) of education, incalculable social factors and, of course, her personal interest in the subject, will help determine what field she chooses. And whatever that is, I am certain only of her excellence.

A few years ago I attended an Executive Education seminar at Cornell University. I was in the hotel business at the time and there were hoteliers from around the world at this seminar. In my particular class of about twenty, there were only three Americans.
At my table there were three men and one woman, she from Japan. Two of the men were American, one from Jamaica. One of our tasks, towards the end of our conference, was to design and start our own hotel. One very important aspect of running a hotel is what to charge per room night, and this is very much a science rather than an art, taking into account what I thought was an astonishing number of factors. Charged with this task, we went straight to work, each working individually but talking to each other. We came to our figure.
The professors went about the room, telling each group how far off their number was, why it was wrong and how to correct it. Each group missed one integral aspect, each different from the other.
Our table was last, and as each group was declared wrong our chests puffed a little because we had taken into account what the others had missed. By the time we were called, our colleague from Jamaica, being the appointed one, proudly gave "our" answer.

We were the most wrong.

I can't remember what, exactly, we missed, but it was a doozy. And one of the professors helpfully pointed out that, in the real world, we'd have been lucky to have lasted a month. But the other professor who had been walking about the room during the work phase at which we were to come up with our rate, asked our female colleague what her number was. She was right. To the penny.
The class was on Team Effectiveness, and on the last day we learned that we weren't either. We also learned a bit about certain stereotypes, our female colleague, too. The professor who knew she was right chided her for not standing up and telling three proud dolts how wrong they were.
Lessons learned across the board.
Namely that I (try to) never assume a person I meet, regardless of gender, race, national origin, what have you, has any innate superiority or deficiency in any subject matter in particular.
Usually after being around someone long enough, they'll let you know what they're good at, and what they aren't.