Did I miss something?
9 Year Old Writes Book On Picking Up Girls
Actually, it's entitled "How to Talk to Girls".
Alec Greven, the author, is nine years old and is in the fourth grade. He's pictured here picking up talking to a couple of girls during his book tour (seriously!).
It started off as a $3 pamphlet that he sold at his school book fair. Now, it's available on Amazon and bookstores everywhere. It's ranked #1052 at Amazon as of this writing, which is extremely good since it has only been out for less than a week.
Some of his advice:
The fourth-grader from Castle Rock, Colo., advises Lothario wannabes to stop showing off, go easy on the compliments to avoid looking desperate – and be wary of "pretty girls."
"It is easy to spot pretty girls because they have big earrings, fancy dresses and all the jewelry," he writes in Chapter Three.
"Pretty girls are like cars that need a lot of oil."
What say you to that, pretty girls?
He advises, "The best choice for most boys is a regular girl. Remember, some pretty girls are coldhearted when it comes to boys. Don't let them get to you."
Right. Why would I want pretty girls getting to me?
Alec isn't dating anyone right now. He thinks he's too young to date:
Dating – which he defines as going out to dinner without your parents – is for "kind of old" people, who are 15 or 16.
An excerpt from Chapter 3, titled Crushes, reads, "It is very hard to get a girl to like you. Sometimes it takes years to get a girl to like you. Girls can get crushes on boys. (Tip: How to get a girl to like you, talk to them and get to know them.) Sometimes show off your skills, like playing soccer. Anything that you are good at."
His classmates are now trying to ride the cash cow:
Savannah Morris and Kamaryn Evans will be working on, "How to Talk to Boys" while Sarah Hertig was motivated in a different way. Her piece of work will be entitled, "How to Get on a Boys Nerves."
Way to go, Sarah.
Anyway, you can see parts of Alec's book here.
And yes, he has a follow-up due out next March: "How To Talk To Moms"
Sometimes The Headline Is All You Need To Read
Case in point: Man says God ordered him to ram vehicle at 100 mph
Although, I will admit, the last line of the article amused me as well:
A psychiatric evaluation has been ordered for a man.
Good call.
Fox News Shut Out Of Obama Press Conferences
Oh, they are allowed in. It's just that Obama has had five post-election press conferences, and not once has the Fox News reporter been called on. Fishbowl DC has been keeping the tally.
It might seem mean at first, I suppose. But then again, they're not really a news organization.
Bush Was Warned
Remember when Bush was presented with an intelligence warning that "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S." and he pooh-poohed the whole thing, humoring the intelligence official by telling him, "You've covered your ass, now"?
And then how, less than two months later, bin Laden struck?
And remember when Bush proclaimed that he had no warning that the levies in New Orleans might break?
And then we later learned that he did get that warning?
Well, now we have the economic equivalent:
The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.
"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories," California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.
Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.
Well, the Bush Administration has been remarkably consistent in totally ignoring warning signs — I'll give them that.
That's the legacy.
“Fame” Lives Forever
A remake of the 1980 movie musical "Fame" is coming out September 2009.
This is a remake of the film, and not a film version of the stage musical adaption based on the original film. Nor is it a sequel to the original film, nor a sequel to the stage musical which is based on the original film. Nor is it a prequel to any of the aforementioned film or staged versions of Fame. Nor is it a pre-sequel to anything Fame-related, be it theatrical or cinematic.
It's just a remake.
On film.
It will keep some of the songs from the original, and add new ones. Cast includes Debbie Allen (as the school's principal, who was also in the original movie), Charles S. Dutton (as an acting teacher), Kelsey Grammer (as an orchestra maestro), Megan Mullally (as a voice teacher) and Bebe Neuwirth (as a dance instructor).
One Man Acappella Thriller
He doesn't sing too well, and he had to transpose some tracks electronically in order to get the Michael Jackson timbre. And many of the tracks are looped.
Oh, and he's French.
But pay no attention to that, and just enjoy the capabilities and presentation, as this guy sings "Thriller" — all the parts, all the percussion, vocals, instruments, etc.
Surfing For Seniors
I guess they have to be this condescending… or do they?
Although frankly, I think all the senior citizens who intend to become computer-saavy have already done so.
BTW, It’s Unconstitutional For Hillary To Become Secretary Of State
Not that anyone cares.
But, technically, she really can't become SoS. Not legally.
It's because of a rather obscure clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6) called the Emoluments Clause, which reads:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time ….
Translated? The Framers didn't want members of Congress creating new jobs or giving raises to existing jobs, and then taking those jobs for themselves. It was kind of an anti-corruption thing (an "emolument" is just an old-timey word for "salary" or "compensation").
The problem comes because of an Executive Order dated January 4, 2008, in which President Bush ordered the salaries of Cabinet Secretaries to be raised from $186,600 to $191,300. And Sen. Clinton's current term runs from 2007 through 2012. So you've met the preconditions of the Emoluments Clause:
1) a raise to existing "civil office" job (Secretary of State);
2) said raise was created during the time Clinton was a Senator; and
3) Senator Clinton now becoming Secretary of State.
Therefore, we have a constitutional problem.
Not surprisingly, this has come up before. In 1908, President Taft sought to have Senator Philander Knox (Note: "Philander" is a name that has gone curiously out of style, hasn't it?) appointed as his Secretary of State. But the pay for that office had been hiked the previous term.
How did they get around it? The Senate passed a bill which rescinded the previous pay hike for Secretary of State.
In 1973, President Nixon nominated Sen. William Saxbe (R-OH) to serve as his Attorney General after the Saturday Night Massacre, but the AG's salary had been increased in 1969 during Saxbe's term. But Nixon persuaded Congress to lower Saxbe's salary to the pre-1969 level. And that's how the inside-politics term the "Saxbe fix" was born (although really, it should be the "Knox fix", since Taft thought of it first).
And it happened again during the Clinton Administration, when Bill Clinton sought to confirm Senator Lloyd Bentsen as his Treasury Secretary. The solution? Congress employed the "Saxbe fix", thanks to a bill offered by Senator John Glenn.
And now we have it again today.
Admittedly, one can argue that the Emoluments Clause is "anachronistic".
Alternatively, one can argue that it doesn't apply, since the pay hike here came from an executive order of Bush, and not from Congress itself (therefore, nobody can claim there was "self-dealing" by a Senator or Representative, which is what the Framers sought to ban through the Emoluments Clause).
But if you read the language of the article closely, it doesn't matter who ordered the pay hike.
So, anachronistic it may be — or non-applicable to the original intent of the Framers — we have here, strictly speaking, in the plain words of the United States Constitution, a situation which is unconstitutional. Hillary simply cannot become Secretary of State, as things stand today.
The so-called "Saxbe fix" could be employed yet again. Yes, some might argue that the "Saxbe fix" doesn't render the unconstitutional appointment suddenly "constitutional". After all, they would argue, the three conditions above have been met, even if the pay hike is later rescinded. And such an argument might prevail. But no court has ever rendered judgment on this constitutional issue.
But, in any event, the absence of the Saxbe fix will definitely mean that Hillary's appointment is unconstitutional. So somebody in Congress better get a move-on, and offer a bill to rescind Bush's pay hike to the incoming Secretary of State.
And let's hope nobody makes a big fuss.
The Current Recession Began in December 2007
The dating of the recession's beginning means we can say a few things now as "fact". This is the eleventh recession in the post-World War II era, but it is already one of the longest. The NBER announcement shows that our current downturn has lasted a year (and counting), and only two of the modern recessions (November 1973 to March 1975 and July 1981 to November 1982) have lasted this long.
With no sign of an upturn, it also looks like this recession is fixing to be the longest since the Great Depression.
And now that we when the recession began (December 2007), it's time for playback:
– “We don’t believe we’re going to have a recession though.” [Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/08]
– “I think the experts will tell you we’re not in a recession.” [President Bush, 2/10/08]
– “The answer is, I don’t think we are in a recession right now.” [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 2/11/08]
– “First of all, we’re not in a recession.” [President Bush, 4/22/08]
– “The data are pretty clear that we are not in a recession.” [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 5/7/08]
– “I don’t think we are” in a recession. [Director of the National Economic Council Keith Hennesy, 6/3/08]
– “I think we have avoided a recession.” [White House Budget Director Jim Nussle, 7/31/08]
– “I don’t think anybody could tell you right now if we’re in a recession or not” [Dana Perino, 10/7/08]
UPDATE: Dow fell 600 points on this news. WHY?!? I think we all were aware we were in a recession.
Forever Young
Researchers believe they have identified a fundamental cause of aging, according to a study published this week in the journal Cell.
I thought "a fundamental cause of aging" was the passage of time. But what do I know, right?
The mechanism was previously found in fungus and has now been discovered in mice.
Again, with the mice.
It's likely that the same process applies to humans, said the authors of the research, from Harvard.
Hahvahd. Okay, they must know what they're talking about.
The study found that DNA damage, which accrues as we age, decreases a cell's ability to regulate which genes are turned on and off in particular settings. Though DNA damage speeds up aging, the actual cause is not the DNA damage but the lack of gene regulation. However, this lack of gene regulation, called epigenetics, may be reversible.
O.K. So DNA damage doesn't cause aging; it only speeds it up. What actually causes aging is "lack of gene regulation".
Therefore, anything that helps regulate genes will prevent aging.
The study focused on a group of genes called sirtuins that are involved in the aging process. Sirtuins respond to DNA damage to repair it but appear to become overwhelmed as DNA damage accumulates during aging. When DNA damage accumulates, the sirtuins became too distracted to properly regulate gene activity. This was found in yeast about 10 years ago. The new study shows it also occurs in mice.
Okay. So sirtuins regulate genes — or rather — they would if only the DNA damage would get out of the way.
But when stimulated by either the chemical in red wine, resveratrol, or by caloric restriction, sirtuins appear to function better. In the study, researchers administered extra copies of the sirtuin gene, or fed resveratrol to mice that were genetically altered to develop lymphoma. That extended their lifespan by 24% to 46%.
Bottom line: this thing called resveratrol helps prevent again.
So I had to do a little googling, and found out where you can your hands on resveratrol. We already know that it is in red wines, but some red wines are better than others:
| Beverage | Total resveratrol (mg/L) | Total resveratrol in a 5 ounce glass (mg) |
|---|---|---|
| Red Wines (Global) | 1.98 – 7.13 | 0.30 – 1.07 |
| Red Wines (Spanish) | 1.92 – 12.59 | 0.29 – 1.89 |
| Red grape juice (Spanish) | 1.14 – 8.69 | 0.17 – 1.30 |
| Rose Wines (Spanish) | 0.43 – 3.52 | 0.06 – 0.53 |
| Pinot Noir | 0.40 – 2.0 | 0.06 – 0.30 |
| White Wines (Spanish) | 0.05 – 1.80 | 0.01 – 0.27 |
It's also found in peanuts, although at a much lower level (about half of red wine, ounce for ounce).
It also can be found in cranberry juice, although typically in lower amounts, and it varies by region of cranberries.
Japanese knotweed is a commercial supplement which contains high amounts of resveratrol. And there are other commercial supplements as well.
Or… you could just get drunk on red wine, I suppose.
Preventative Peace
Supposedly, there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the "angry left" with regard to Obama's choices for his "international team" — i.e., Hillary as Secretary of State, Robert Gates staying on as Secretary of Defense, and Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser.
I think it's premature to complain. None of them, in my view, is severely hawkish.
And this should be reassuring to the doubters:
Yet all three of his choices — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the rival turned secretary of state; Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser, and Robert M. Gates, the current and future defense secretary — were selected in large part because they have embraced a sweeping shift of resources in the national security arena.
The shift, which would come partly out of the military’s huge budget, would create a greatly expanded corps of diplomats and aid workers that, in the vision of the incoming Obama administration, would be engaged in projects around the world aimed at preventing conflicts and rebuilding failed states.
Whether they can make the change — one that Mr. Obama started talking about in the summer of 2007, when his candidacy was a long shot at best — “will be the great foreign policy experiment of the Obama presidency,” one of his senior advisers said recently.
But the adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the three have all embraced “a rebalancing of America’s national security portfolio” after a huge investment in new combat capabilities during the Bush years.
So there you have. A national security structure with greater emphasis on preventing conflict rather than winning conflict. Seems to me that's how we save money and lives in the long run.
It reminds me of an exchange between two characters in the now-dated but marvelously written Cold War play A Walk In The Woods. The Russian arms negotiatior is speaking with the American arms negotiator and says something like (I'm paraphrasing):
"Millions and millions of dollars our countries spend in preparing for war. Vast armies. Huge stockpiles of missiles. But how much do they invest in preparing for peace? Eh? You and me."
Well, it looks like that is about to change, as our military budget will be transformed in large part to a "peace budget".
I like it.
Jon Swift’s Modest Proposal Re: Killer Walmart Shoppers
As you know, Black Friday got off to a great start when hundreds of Walmart shoppers at the Green Acres Mall in Valley Stream, N.Y. literally trampled to death a Walmart employee who happened to situate himself between the shoppers and the bargains.
Jon Swift thinks the shoppers should be blanket pardoned:
Of course, my heart goes out to the family of this man who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but while it is unfortunate that someone got hurt, capitalism is not a dinner party. There will always be some collateral damage in a free market. ….
How can those of us who were not there judge people on the front lines of the Christmas shopping rush? Can we honestly say that we would not have rushed past or over this unfortunate man on the way to grabbing the last plasma TV or Wii to bring some Christmas joy to our children? After 9/11 President Bush said that the best way to defeat the terrorists was to “go shopping.” Should we now condemn those who took him at his word? If he meant what he said, then before he leaves office President Bush should issue a blanket pardon to these high-spirited consumers to head off this assault not only on Americans who were just trying to make Christmas a little better for their families in these trying economic times but on the capitalist system itself….
But issuing blanket pardons may not be enough. Kristol goes on to say that not only should the Bush Administration officials who kept this country safe receive pardons, they should be awarded the Medal of Freedom. “They deserve it,” he says. That would certainly send a message to the America haters who think that they can change all the rules just because they won an election.
And if police do succeed in identifying the Wal-Mart shoppers, think of the message President Bush would be sending about the free enterprise system by awarding these great Americans the Medal of Freedom. They refused to horde their hard-earned dollars in low-interest savings accounts but instead went out to spend it, just as President Bush has urged them to do, at an American company that in the best American tradition has given consumers the best bargains possible by not overpaying their workers and by scouring the world for the cheapest merchandise produced in countries that are not subject to draconian labor and environmental laws. Isn’t that the very definition of freedom?
Jon Swift: true to his name.
The Truth Is Out There (but it’s classified)
Seems llike every time a new president gets elected, UFO buffs come out of their parents' basements and demand that the new president release classified documents showing the proof of UFOs, the goverment cover-up, etc.
This year is no exception.
I'm not particularly confident such "X-files" exist, but it would be cool to know.
“The Doves Were Right”
Interesting new book out by Gordon M. Goldstein called Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam.
The author originally wrote the book in conjunction with McGeorge Bundy. Bundy was JFK's national security advisor — one of the "best and the brightest", albeit with strong Republican roots. It was Bundy who was urged Kennedy to send "advisors" into Vietnam, and who pushed the United States into southeast Asia.
Bundy died while working on the book, so the book became about Bundy.
One of history's great what-if questions has always been: If Kennedy had not been assassinated, would he have escalated the conflict in Vietnam (as Johnson did), or would he have withdrawn? Since his retirement from the public eye, Bundy rarely discussed the Vietnam War, although when he did, he supported it. But still, it haunted him.
In this book, based on Bundy's notes, we learn Bundy's response to that what-if question — no, Kennedy would not have created the full-blown Vietnam War. Apparently Bundy, in his later years, came to terms with what he had helped wrought.