MensaMag honours the holidays by avoiding controversy. We celebrate our kowardly killer kops and supine supreme court. We explain the epistemology of health and nutrition studies, the on-going thalidomide scandal and control of media by big business. The best short summary of our financing crisis is from Le Monde and we dig geo-politically into our oil supply.     

Notes & Queries reveals again that media news is untrustworthy. We call for young Mensans to step up to the plate. Unexpected humour blazes like a blithe beacon of ignorance on quiz programs, and we run our own quiz night in December. Mensa testing is December 3 (see Events). Click any Comments button to contact us; your thoughts are welcome. Send items by pressing Contributions on the Contacts page. Happy holidays one and all.  

General

Ever feel life is passing you by? Activities with fellow Mensans will turn this around. Think coffees, dinners, quizzes, games, movies, walks, concerts, lectures, ballet, museum tours. We’re informal, unstructured, and even intellectually stimulating. Mensa Calgary is a community where members interact, network, support each other and enjoy each other’s company. For further info, contact Patricia at kathleen4057@yahoo.ca ["The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper." — Eden Phillpotts]

MensaTest

The next Mensa testing session will be Monday, December 3^rd at 6:30 pm at the Calgary Public Library, downtown branch. Contact Vicki Herd for further info: vherd@shaw.ca

CoffeeFests

Diverting discussion at The Purple Perk, 2212 – 4^th St SW, 7:00pm, Thursday December 13 and January 6. No subject too hot, no view too contentious, no humour too sublime. Meet your peers.

QuizEvening

Delightful and challenging questions posed by our eloquent maestro. And bring your own if you wish. December 10, 11 or 12. Notifications will go out via email when the evening is chosen.

BookClub

Enthusiastic about books? Visit the Mensa book club, Saturday, Dec 8^th at 12:00 noon.  The Prairie Ink Restaurant, 120 – 8 Ave SW (2^nd floor of McNally Robinson’s bookstore. The book discussed will be Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen. Everyone invited. For more info, contact Patricia (kathleen4057@yahoo.ca or 212-1461).

SecondTuesdays

Monthly coffee and conversation evening chez Vicki Herd, 2469 Sorrel Mews SW (a couple of blocks south of 33 Ave, east of Crowchild Tr), 7:30pm. BYOB. Second Tuesday of the month.

Requisat in pacem the old SecondTuesday nurtured and sustained by Catherine Ford, with great thanks. Long live the new SecondTuesday at Vicki Herd’s house. All Mensans welcome. The following is Catherine Ford’s letter on relinquishing the Second Tuesday.

Dear friends and fellow Mensa members:

It has been a wonderful, interesting, educational and inspiring ride for the past 25 years, but all good things must end. So, too, with Second Tuesday. Through all these years, I have always been amazed at the ease with which we Mensans get along with each other, despite the fact we are a disparate group.

It has been a privilege to be a host for a Mensa gathering every Second Tuesday of every month – 300 meetings in all – through all the years of my serving on the national board, through three moves and two marriages, and god knows how much Scotch consumed in the furtherance of Mensa.

I don’t do this lightly, and it has taken months for me to come to the conclusion that it is time for someone else to take over.

To that end, the January 2008 Second Tuesday (Jan.8) will be the last. I know that it will take time for the message to get out to everyone, particularly those people who appear only occasionally from out of town, so please spread the word.

Catherine Ford

For general queries email Vicki Herd (vherd@shaw.ca).

Millions of people are confused by health advice. It appears so contradictory that the simplest thing is to disbelieve it all.

Nowhere is this truer than in advice over diet. This week [end of October 2007] the World Cancer Research Fund stigmatised bacon – along with other processed meats – by advising those who want to avoid cancer to cut it out of their diet. What’s their beef? They have to be kidding, surely?

At issue here is the whole question of how we know what we know – what philosophers call epistemology. So this is a page about epistemology, a lovely word that seldom creeps into even a newspaper as upmarket as The Times.
Where do all these claims about diet and health come from?

They come from studies launched by scientists to try to unravel the causes of disease. We know that many diseases are caused by germs, but thanks to vaccines and antibiotics most of these infectious diseases are now under control. We are left with the diseases caused by age, diet and lifestyle: principally heart disease and cancer, which between them are the cause of more than half of all deaths in developed countries.

Hang on. You’ve just said that heart disease and cancer are caused by age, diet or lifestyle, without any evidence. How do we know that?

Both are commoner in older people than younger ones. And both are commoner in some communities than in others, while some lifestyle links – between smoking and both cancer and heart disease, for example – have been well proven. So it is certainly a valid hypothesis that there are features of modern life and diet that contribute to disease and it is worth trying to find out what they are.

What’s the best way to do that?

The best way would be the way that new medicines are tested, in a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. One group would be fed on the food under suspicion, the other given a matching but harmless placebo, and they would be followed until they developed cancer, or died. Neither group would know which they were getting, nor would those responsible for running the trial, to avoid accidental bias. This is the gold standard, but it’s entirely impracticable in most cases for dietary studies in free-living human beings. Life’s too short, especially if you are in the group randomised to bacon.

And the next best?

There are many alternative ways of studying dietary effects, generally known as observational studies. They fall into two broad groups: cohort studies, and case-control studies. They have their strengths, and weaknesses.

An example, please?

The Framingham Study, based on a community in Massachusetts, and running since 1948, is a classic cohort study. It has provided most of the evidence doctors now rely on for estimating the effects of diet, exercise and drugs such as aspirin, on the risk of heart disease.

In a cohort study a particular population – in this case just over 5,000 adults from Framingham – is closely examined at the start and details taken of every physical variable (such as blood pressure and cholesterol levels) as well as each individual’s diet, exercise and smoking habits. The participants are then followed to some predetermined end-point (death is the least ambiguous) and correlations drawn between the variables measured and the cause of death.

And a case-control study?

In this case, researchers identify people who already have the disease they are interested in – colon cancer, say - and compare them with another set of people as nearly matched as possible. By questioning the cases and the controls about their diet and lifestyle, they attempt to tease out differences that may explain why one group developed cancer, and the other didn’t.

Which is better?

Cohort studies are much the better, assuming that the data gathered at the beginning are complete and reliable. But they are expensive, take a very long time, and if you fail to ask at the beginning about some variable that subsequently turns out to be important, it’s too late.

A sub-category of the cohort study is the nested case-control study. This adopts the case-control methodology, but using participants whose characteristics are already known because they are part of the cohort study. It is quite a powerful tool.

Ordinary case-control studies are the commonest and, alas, the weakest. They are inexpensive and get results fast, but are unreliable because they rely on participants looking back and remembering how they ate and how they lived years before they developed the disease. People’s memories are poor, and are often influenced by what they think they ought to say. This is known as recall bias.

Any other problems?

Lots. It’s impossible to be certain that the controls really match the cases. In case-control studies of smoking or drinking, for example, people who claim to be nonsmokers or nondrinkers may in fact be ex-smokers or ex-drinkers, whose health was damaged before they gave up. This is misclassification bias.

It is also difficult to rule out confounding factors, where an association is found but does not prove anything. For example, in observational studies people who take vitamin pills appear to suffer less cancer and heart disease, but in double-blind trials, this benefit disappears.

Why? Probably because vitamin-taking is simply a marker for people who are health-conscious generally. The benefit comes from some other aspect of their behaviour which cannot be adequately corrected for.

Finally, there are statistics. A result can claim to be statistically significant if the odds of it arising by chance are one in 20. Those are not especially long odds, so plenty of spurious results get published.

If these kinds of studies are so useless, why do people do them?

They are not useless, entirely. They are a good way of forming hypotheses, and building up knowledge. They just fall a long way short of proof.

Can’t we do better?

The obvious thing to do is to combine lots of studies together in a meta-analysis. This is especially popular, as it is a desk job not requiring any new research, or much in the way of grants. The strength of the technique is that an accumulation of studies may have greater statistical power to detect small effects, but its weaknesses comes from selection bias (which studies are included and which aren’t) and its close relation, publication bias (you can’t include unpublished studies, which are usually the ones that show no effect).

How does all this relate to the WCRF study?

This was a meta-analysis that included studies of every sort, from double-blind trials to observational studies. It was highly selective, boiling down 500,000 papers to the final 7,000 that were used to draw conclusions. So while it was a useful distillation of the literature, it was no more than that. Another group might have chosen a different 7,000 papers, and reached different conclusions.

So should we chew bacon, or eschew it?

It’s unlikely, despite the WCRF, that occasional consumption of processed meats will make any perceptible difference to an individual. Across the population as a whole it may be detectable, but to an individual a small change to a small risk is beneath the threshold of detection. WCRF is on stronger ground when it advises people to stay thin. Why do I say that? Oh, just a gut feeling.

(by nigel hawkes, health editor, london times, November 3, 2007)

Unseen, it already ranks as one of the most legally controversial television dramas made in Germany.

Next week [early November 2007], after more than a year in the courts, the [German] state broadcasting network will show a powerful film depicting the devastating effects of the thalidomide drug on several thousand disabled children – and point a finger at the pharmaceutical industry.

"It’s a breakthrough for the freedom of expression in this country," says Michael Souvignier, the producer of the film A Single Pill.

The original maker of the drug, known in Germany as Contergan, is the Aachen-based company Grünenthal, which has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent the film being aired. It claimed that the film falsely showed the company behaving immorally in trying to wriggle out of its responsibilities to inform the public and compensate the victims.

"The viewing public will be confused by invented and twisted facts in order to boost the ratings," complained Sebastian Wirtz, the chief executive of Gruenenthal and grandson of the founder, in a court hearing.

Now some scenes that featured in the screenplay have been removed or shortened, and judges – the case went as far as the German Supreme Court – have given the go-ahead for a prime-time showing on two evenings next week. There will be a disclaimer insisting that the film is a work of art rather than a documentary account of the Contergan scandal.

A Single Pill mixes fiction with fact and tells the story of a lawyer whose child is born disabled after his wife takes one Contergan tablet during her pregnancy.

Contergan-thalidomide was a sleeping pill seemingly without side-effects that was also prescribed by doctors as an effective way of fighting morning sickness. Grünenthal marketed it as "harmless as a sugar cube". In 1960 alone 20 million tablets were sold.

Between 1957 and 1961 – when the pills were withdrawn – about 12,000 disabled children were born world-wide as the result of pregnant mothers swallowing the medication. Many children were missing arms and legs, or had flipper-like limbs; some were deaf; most had spinal damage or kidney problems.

Now the surviving children of the thalidomide or Contergan generation have reached late middle age and are often suffering from new medical problems; the initial compensation payments wrung out of the manufacturers are no longer sufficient. That seems to explain the extraordinary tenacity with which Gruenenthal has been trying to block the film: it is likely to stir popular backing for a more generous handout.

Grünenthal, after hard negotiation, set aside 100 million marks (£34 million), which was topped up by the same amount from the Government. It was hailed as the biggest such payment in history.

In Britain, Distillers Co which distributed the drug was pressed to offer £20 million for the 456 afflicted children (thalidomiders). The Thalidomide Trust administers the fund, which provides up to £30,000 a year for the worst-hit thalidomiders.

In Germany the compensation – for about 2,800 victims – is more meagre, amounting to a maximum of €545 a month for those born without legs or arms. "We want a substantially better offer," says Andreas Meyer, the chairman of the League of Contergan victims. The victims talk of a target of €5 billion – enough to see the victims through into old age. Few were expected to survive beyond the age of 20 when they were born.

There was little official support or sympathy for the families. One scene in the film shows a doctor telling the parents of the disabled child: "You can easily give away things like this to special homes."

Accounts now emerging from those years paint an even more hostile picture: the newly born were placed on the floor of the delivery ward on the assumption that they would die.

"It’s something my family is very sorry about," said Mr Wirtz in an interview this month to mark the 50th anniversary of the introduction of Contergan on the German market. "The things I reflect on are how, to whom, when, with what consequences and in what way to make an apology."

His company no longer makes thalidomide but the drug is still in use in the fight against leprosy.

Drug victims

— Thalidomide went on sale as a treatment for morning sickness in 1958 in more than 40 countries

— In Britain the most commonly prescribed drug containing thalidomide was Distaval, manufactured by the Distillers Company, now owned by Diageo

— Foetuses are vulnerable to the drug’s effects between 27 and 40 days after conception

— The drug caused deformities in up to 12,000 infants. Of these, 5,000 survived beyond childhood

— The drug was taken off the market in Britain in December 1961, though a government warning was not issued until May 1962

— There are 456 thalidomide victims left in Britain

— The first private compensation settlements were made in 1968

— Five years later – after a campaign by David Mason, the father of a victim, and The Sunday Times – the Thalidomide Trust was set up, providing a fund of £20 million for victims

— The average annual compensation paid to a victim is £13,000

Sources of data: britannica.com; thalidomidesociety.co.uk; thalidomideuk.com; thalidomide.org.uk

(by roger boyes, from Berlin for the london times)

"Volatile"… Le terme revient en boucle dans la bouche des analystes américains. La situation est "volatile", manière de dire que l’on ne voit plus très bien où l’on va. Et que si le pire n’est jamais sûr, il n’est pas non plus exclu. Aux indicateurs économiques rassurants récemment publiés répond, note le Wall Street Journal, une "anxiété" croissante et explicite des marchés financiers.

Vendredi 2 novembre, lors des nombreux débats sur les chaînes de télévision spécialisées, analystes et experts ont rivalisé de certitudes contradictoires, qui évoquant la perspective d’une "débâcle" bancaire, qui assurant que les "rumeurs alarmistes exagérées" et la "morosité" des milieux d’affaires seraient de peu de poids devant la bonne santé fondamentale de l’économie américaine. PDG d’ING Etats-Unis, Cathy Murphy admettait sur Fox Business Network que "les investisseurs particuliers deviennent nerveux", les conjurant de ne pas "surréagir" face aux craintes diffuses des marchés.

En soirée, cependant, la morosité était montée d’un cran : la dernière "rumeur" diffusée par le site Internet du Wall Street Journal voulait que le PDG de Citigroup, Charles Prince, ait l’intention de démissionner lors de la réunion "d’urgence" de son conseil d’administration convoquée pour ce week-end. Si tel était le cas, il serait le second patron d’une grande banque américaine poussé vers la sortie, après Stanley O’Neal, son homologue de Merrill Lynch, mardi 30 octobre.

Les indicateurs, donc. A la "divine surprise", mercredi, de la croissance au troisième trimestre - 3,9 %, supérieure de 1 point aux prévisions des analystes - s’est ajoutée vendredi 2 novembre celle du marché du travail. L’économie américaine a généré 166 000 embauches nettes en octobre, soit deux fois plus que prévu. Ce chiffre vient conforter la banque centrale américaine, la Fed, dans sa conviction que la clé pour résorber la menace de récession est de garantir le niveau de la consommation des ménages - et donc à la fois de maîtriser le risque inflationniste et de préserver le très faible taux de chômage (resté inchangé en octobre, à 4,7 %).

Les inquiétudes, ensuite. Elles se sont précisément focalisées, vendredi, sur les deux grandes banques précitées. Merrill Lynch a perdu dans la journée 8 % à Wall Street. Motif de ce coup de bambou : une information - non validée - selon laquelle la banque d’affaires aurait conclu des accords avec des hedge funds (fonds spéculatifs) au deuxième trimestre pour que ceux-ci "récupèrent" pour une durée d’un an une partie de ses actifs dépréciés, afin que la banque puisse afficher des résultats honorables en dissimulant des milliards de dollars de pertes.

Cette dépréciation s’est effectivement produite, au troisième trimestre, pour un montant de 8,4 milliards de dollars (5,8 milliards d’euros). Mais la "rumeur" de vendredi, selon tous les analystes, porte un préjudice inestimable à la crédibilité de l’institution financière. Dans un communiqué où chaque mot était pesé, Merrill Lynch a annoncé n’avoir "aucune raison de penser que de telles transactions inappropriées ont eu lieu". Les initiés en ont conclu que l’opération de dissimulation a effectivement été montée et que son "responsable" désigné devra, seul, porter le chapeau. L’autorité des marchés financiers, la Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a ouvert une enquête.

De son côté, Citigroup a vu sa valeur boursière réduite de 20 % depuis le 12 octobre (elle a encore baissé de 2,3 % vendredi). Le bénéfice net de la première banque américaine de dépôts a chuté de 57 % au troisième trimestre. Elle a déjà perdu plus de 3 milliards de dollars sur ses titres de crédits à risques et 1,56 milliard de dollars au dernier trimestre sur son portefeuille de titres obligataires.

Surtout, l’initiative que la banque, très active sur le marché des prêts hypothécaires à risques, a prise en octobre avec le Trésor américain - la constitution d’un fonds de 75 milliards de dollars pour parer aux échéances non remboursées des emprunteurs, et donc à la menace d’effondrement accru des titres boursiers basés sur les prêts à risques - pourrait s’avérer très insuffisante.

Selon l’économiste Mark Zandi, de l’agence de notation Moody’s, un quart des 2 450 milliards de dollars de prêts hypothécaires à risques sont détenus par des emprunteurs non solvables ou en difficulté. Les pertes globales du secteur bancaire et boursier pourraient, selon lui, atteindre 225 milliards de dollars.

Ces prévisions pessimistes corroborent un récent rapport des services économiques de J.P. Morgan Chase, selon lequel les pertes des organismes de crédit devraient s’aggraver en 2008. Conséquence directe, le rapport pronostique à la fois une forte réduction de la capacité des banques à avancer des fonds et une baisse notable du marché immobilier, deux éléments pesant lourdement, par ricochet, sur la consommation des ménages.

Après la seconde réduction en un mois d’un quart de point, par la Fed, de son principal taux directeur, jeudi, l’embellie a été exceptionnellement courte. On se croirait revenu en juillet, lorsque la Fed était accusée de "passivité". La crainte se répand d’une contagion de la crise du crédit et de la construction à d’autres secteurs de l’économie américaine, qui se conjuguerait aux difficultés accrues des banques. Le patron de la Fed, Ben Bernanke, laisse entendre, lui, que la récente baisse des taux devrait être la dernière avant longtemps, laissant les analystes financiers plus que sceptiques.

(by sylvain cypel, le monde, November 3, 2007)

Many large-scale exporting nations and regions have increased government take from oil or already nationalized their oil resources. These include Russia, much of the Middle East, Venezuela and other countries.

The five of the world’s large oil exporters (above chart) have two things besides big oil reserves in common. First, their economies are largely dependent on revenues from energy production – they don’t produce much else. Second, their people or their governments (or both) are hostile to the West.

The chart shows the relative positions of five of the world’s large producers – Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. Consider the context: the planet consumes about 85 million barrels a day. Together, these five countries produce more than one third of world supply.

Except for post-Soviet Russia, which is new to the game, each of these countries long ago found ways to maximize government revenue from petroleum. Perversely, in the long run this will serve them well by making less production available. As prices rise, their economies will boom long after their production has gone into decline. As the world nears its petroleum peak, the economic reality of a seller’s market will have strange, unintended consequences.

Economic Dependency: Consider the first of the two points I raised. The countries named in the chart have little to keep their economies going except revenue from oil and gas. Here are the numbers. The info comes from many sources, but I’ve done my best to keep it consistent.

• Nigeria: Oil exports provide 20 per cent of GDP, 95 per cent of foreign exchange earnings, and about 65 per cent of budgetary revenues. No reliable export numbers available; Nigeria’s OPEC quota is 2.3 million barrels per day.

• Saudi Arabia: the petroleum sector accounts for roughly 75 per cent of budget revenues, 45 per cent of GDP, and 90 per cent of export earnings. Oil exports are 8.5 million barrels. Saudi’s official OPEC quota is 10.1 million barrels per day.

• Iran: Petroleum exports of 2.8 million barrels per day represent 80 per cent of exports. Exports: 2.8 million barrels per day; the country’s OPEC quota is 4.1 million barrels per day.

• Venezuela: Oil revenues account for roughly 90 per cent of export earnings, more than 50 per cent of federal revenue, and around 30 per cent of GDP. Oil exports are about 2.3 million barrels per day – well short of Venezuela’s OPEC quota of 3.2 million barrels per day.

• Russia: Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80 per cent of exports and 32 per cent of government revenues. Each day, Russia exports some 7 million barrels of oil. It is not a member of OPEC.

No matter how much they protest the importance of oil at "reasonable" levels, these countries are delighted when the price of the marginal barrel of oil – that is, the price of the last barrel sold – goes up. Higher marginal prices enable them to charge more for the barrels they load onto tankers. Nothing new here.

However, at a recent energy conference in London, Sadad Al-Husseini – an oil consultant and former executive at Saudi Arabia’s national oil company - made an observation that puts the reality of this economic dependency in an interesting light. In effect, he quantified the price of the marginal barrel when he suggested that supply shortages will add $12 to the price for every million barrels a day of additional global demand.

As this chart of eight major oil-consuming nations illustrates, it isn’t hard to see where increases in world oil consumption will come from. Just watch China and India grow.

Of course, supply and demand are parts of the same equation. Let’s assume that $12 is the cost of adding another million barrels of demand. It would also be the price of subtracting a million barrels of supply. Cutting supply by one million barrels a day would jack prices up by $12 per barrel as effectively as would increasing demand by that amount.

While the marginal price is increasing from a growing Asia, it could also increase because of reductions in supply. If the five producing countries I have been discussing were to cut supply by a million barrels per day, we would likely see yet a price increase of the same magnitude.

Consider the math: Today’s marginal barrel is worth about $90. If our five countries collectively reduced production by 5 per cent, their revenue per barrel would increase by 15 per cent, as oil rose to $102 per barrel. Their collective revenues would benefit quite nicely, thank you very much.

How could such a reduction occur? These countries wouldn’t need an OPEC agreement to reduce production – you may have noticed that none of the OPEC members are producing their full quotas anyhow. They could effectively reduce production through failure to explore for and develop reserves, by shoddy production practices, by simple government fiat, or as a result of the natural depletion of their reservoirs. Supply could also drop as a consequence of war, insurgency or terrorism. Whatever the cause, the result would be that countries with little else to offer could increase government coffers and national wealth.

Hostility to the West: At the beginning of this post, I noted that each of these countries has a certain amount of hostility to the west, and each in its special way.

• In the case of Nigeria, part of the issue is an insurgency in which local entrepreneurs have found that taking westerners hostage can be a good source of income. A major oil exporter, the country is also hobbled by political instability, corruption, lousy infrastructure and worse management. Oil is frequently stolen from production facilities, and whole fields shut down after rebel attacks.

• Saudi Arabia? Officially, the princelings love the West and will do everything they can to maintain supply. Their subjects have other ideas, though. You may remember that fifteen of the September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. The land of the fanatical Wahhabist sect of Islam has some real issues with the decadence of the West.

• Iran’s mullahs can’t understand why anyone would be concerned about their peaceful nuclear program, and would just love to nuke anyone who questions their nuclear rights. George Bush recently announced that if they get nuclear weapons, it will lead to World War Three.

• Hugo Chavez is selling gasoline in Caracas for 3 cents a litre (part of his socialist reform), while running a country fuelled by crude oil exports. And he’s confiscating the assets of well-managed western oil companies in the interest of owning and operating those assets locally.

• Then there is newly-belligerent Russia. Incredibly popular and riding the wave of high oil prices, Vladimir Putin wants Russia to become a superpower again. And his control of energy can help him achieve that goal. His country is already an energy superpower.

Putin has briefly cut off the taps to both Ukraine and Georgia in recent years, using the energy weapon to settle political scores. He does much more than talk.

Greedy Government Redux: I have discussed recent changes to Alberta’s royalty regime. As I pointed out, during periods of high oil prices, governments get greedy. In Canada we experienced the disastrous National Energy Program due to the greed of our federal government in the early 1980s. Now, the provincial government of Alberta is at the trough.

My basic assumption is that the spectre of peak oil is imminent. As a result, and because of high prices, governments around the world are increasing their take from oil and gas. Alberta is by no means alone in this. Increased government take does not increase oil production – in practice, it decreases the incentive and ability for oil companies to bring more oil on stream. Less production, higher prices: it’s a simple matter of supply and demand.

In a response to my article, a correspondent told me that "The sooner we get away from the dirty polluting tar sands, the better it will be for the environment and the people of this planet." I think that if the 1,250,000 daily barrels of oil that now come from Canada’s oil sands suddenly evaporated, you and I would both be dealing with oil well beyond $100 per barrel, right now.

Most consumers in the West can pay the extra money for gasoline that such an increase in oil prices would generate, although most of us have had to tighten our belts to do so. However, rising prices are already causing a great deal of suffering around the world – especially in the poorer countries.

The world is hooked on oil, which is not good. However, as long as we are hooked, we must find ways to keep those supplies of oil coming while we look for solutions. Increased government take makes it more difficult to develop supply. Increased take by countries whose governments or people are openly hostile to the West is a danger we cannot resolve, but it is also a danger we must not ignore.

(by peter mcKenzie-brown, http://languageinstinct.blogspot.com/ )

7am, on November 18, 2007

Le Monde reports at least 70 people, military and civilian, killed in confrontations between Sunnis and Shiites in northwest Pakistan. Le Monde also reports announcements on Pakistani television of 150 people injured in violent conflicts in Kurram at the border with Afghanistan.

CBC: nothing noteworthy in Pakistan.
Times Global (London): nothing noteworthy in Pakistan.
Die Welt: nothing noteworthy in Pakistan.

BIG QUIZ (LBC)
Presenter: Name the funny men who once entertained kings and queens at court.
Contestant: Lepers.

QUIZMANIA (ITV)
Presenter: We’re looking for an occupation beginning with ‘T’.
Contestant: Doctor.
Presenter: No, it’s ‘T’. ‘T’ for Tommy. ‘T’ for Tango. ‘T’ for Tintinnabulation.
Contestant: Oh, right . . . (pause) . . . Doctor.

DANNY KELLY SHOW (RADIO WM)
Presenter: Which French Mediterranean town hosts a famous film festival every year?
Contestant: I don’t know, I need a clue.
Presenter: OK. What do beans come in?
Contestant: Cartons?

LATE SHOW (BBC MIDLANDS)
Presenter: What is the capital of Italy?
Contestant: France.
Presenter: France is another country. Try again.
Contestant: Oh, um, Benidorm.
Presenter: Wrong, sorry, let’s try another question. In which country is the Parthenon?
Contestant: Sorry, I don’t know.
Presenter: Just guess a country then.
Contestant: Paris.

UNIVERSITY CHALLENGE (BBC2)
Presenter: What is another name for ‘cherrypickers’ and ‘cheesemongers’?
Contestant: Homosexuals.
Presenter: No. They’re regiments in the British Army who will be very upset with you.

THE WEAKEST LINK (BBC2)
Presenter: Oscar Wilde, Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Archer have all written books about their experiences in what: prison, or the Conservative Party?
Contestant: The Conservative Party.

BEACON RADIO (WOLVERHAMPTON)
Presenter: For Pounds 10, what is the nationality of the Pope?
Ruth from Rowley Regis: I think I know that one.  Is it Jewish?

THE WEAKEST LINK
Presenter: In traffic, what ‘J’ is where two roads meet?
Contestant: Jool carriageway?

UNIVERSITY CHALLENGE
Presenter: What was Gandhi’s first name?
Contestant: Goosey, goosey?

GWR FM (Bristol)
Presenter: What happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963?
Contestant: I don’t know, I wasn’t watching it then.

QUIZMANIA
Presenter: We’re looking for a word that goes in front of ‘clock’.
Contestant: Grandfather.
Presenter: Grandfather clock is already up there, say something else.
Contestant: Panda.
Presenter: He makes cakes .. .
Contestant: Kipling Street?

FORT BOYARD (CHALLENGE TV)
Presenter: Arrange these two groups of letters to form a word - CHED and PIT.
Team: Chedpit.

LINCS FM PHONE-IN
Presenter: Which is the largest Spanish-speaking country in the world?
Contestant: Barcelona.
Presenter: I was really after the name of a country.
Contestant: I’m sorry, I don’t know the names of any countries in Spain.

NOTTS AND CROSSES QUIZ (BBC RADIO NOTTINGHAM)
Presenter: In which country is Mount Everest?
Contestant (long pause): Er, it’s not in Scotland, is it?

THE MICK GIRDLER SHOW (BBC RADIO SOLENT)
Presenter: I’m looking for an island in the Atlantic whose name includes the letter ‘e’.
Contestant: Ghana.
Presenter: No, listen. It’s an island in the Atlantic Ocean.
Contestant: New Zealand.

NATIONAL LOTTERY (BBC1)
Presenter: What is the world’s largest continent?
Contestant: The Pacific

ROCK FM (PRESTON)
Presenter: Name a film starring Bob Hoskins that is also the name of a famous painting by Leonardo Da Vinci.
Contestant: Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

THE BIGGEST GAME IN TOWN (ITV)
Presenter: What was signed to bring World War I to an end in 1918?
Contestant: Magna Carta.

JAMES O’BRIEN SHOW (LBC)
Presenter: How many kings of England have been called Henry?
Contestant: Er, well, I know there was a Henry the Eighth … er . . . er . . . three?

NATIONAL LOTTERY
Presenter: There are three states of matter: solid, liquid and what?
Contestant: Jelly.

RICHARD ALLINSON SHOW (RADIO 2)
Presenter: What international brand shares its name with the Greek goddess of victory?
Contestant (after long deliberation): Erm, Kellogg’s?

BLIND DATE (ITV)
Girl: Name a book written by Jane Austen.
Boy: Charlotte Bronte.

STEVE PENK BREAKFAST SHOW (VIRGIN RADIO)
Presenter: What is the name of the French-speaking Canadian state?
Contestant: America? Portugal? Canada? Mexico? Italy? Spain?

CHRIS SEARLE SHOW (BBC RADIO BRISTOL)
Presenter: In which European country is Mount Etna?
Caller: Japan.
Presenter: I did say which European country, so in case you didn’t hear that, I can let you try again.
Caller: Er . . . Mexico?

DOG EAT DOG (BBC1)
Presenter: Who wrote Lord of the Rings?
Contestant: Enid Blyton

PAUL WAPPAT (BBC RADIO NEWCASTLE)
Presenter: How long did the Six-Day War between Egypt and Israel last?
Contestant (after long pause): Fourteen days.

NATIONAL LOTTERY
Presenter: Dizzy Gillespie is famous for playing . .. what?
Contestant: Basketball.

NOTTS AND CROSSES QUIZ
Presenter: Where did the D-Day landings take place?
Contestant (after pause): Pearl Harbor?

STEVE WRIGHT IN THE AFTERNOON (BBC RADIO 2)
Presenter: Johnny Weissmuller died on this day. Which jungle-swinging character clad only in a loincloth did he play?
Contestant: Jesus.

The Santa Clause

At this holiday time, when folks’ thoughts turn to bundles of presents delivered by jolly old Saint Nicholas, we wondered what the Law might think of the night-before-Christmas activities of the greatest elf of them all, a.k.a., Santa Claus.

Our report relies upon the alleged account of Santa Claus’ December 24 routine in Clement C. Moore’s "The Night Before Christmas." The statutory references are primarily contained in the Canadian Criminal Code. The narrator is our fictional Crown Prosecutor … Enjoy!

* * * * * * * * * *

"We first encounter the perpetrator in front of a house ("When out on the lawn, there arose such a clatter"), clearly committing a Breach of the Peace (Section 175(1)(d)). Further violations may relate to Mischief Section 430(1)(d) and an inquiry is underway.

"The accused continued such unwarranted behaviour, apparently shouting at animals, to wit, reindeer ("Now Dasher! now Dancer! now Prancer and Vixen! On Comet! on Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!"). This matter has been referred to the SPCA as we understand it may indicate a breach of Section 445."

"The said animals, apparently pulling some form of aircraft ("…a miniature sleigh and eight tiny reindeer") were allegedly instructed by the suspect to flee: "To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall! Now dash away! dash away! dash away, all!" To operate an aircraft in such a dangerous manner, so close to a dwelling unit where children were peacefully sleeping ("The children were nestled all snug in their beds, While visions of sugar plums danced in their heads") raises the potential charge, Your Honour, of breach of Section 218, for the reason of Endangerment of a minor, or, in the alternative, Section 430(2) Mischief Endangering Life. In addition, it is clear that a breach of Section 249 Dangerous Operation of an Aircraft has occurred in this case. In any event, the accused does not appear to be carrying any form of licence for operation of a vehicle, though he argues that where he comes from, the driving of a sleigh has never required a licence.

Transport Canada is also currently investigating whether said "sleigh" was "fit and safe for flight," pursuant to Section 251 Unsafe Aircraft. Apparently, the accused operated this craft without running lights or navigational aids, save a very small red light purportedly emanating from the lead reindeer, said reindeer not being on the flight manifest as listed crew, at least not under his name "Rudolph," an apparent alias which we are investigating, having sent the reindeer’s hoof prints to Trace for DNA analysis.

We now come to the principal purpose for the accused being present, Your Honour, as we find "Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound," raising the obvious issue of Section 348 Breaking and Entering – 348 (1)(a) and 348 (1)(c)(i). The accused has admitted during questioning to being in the house, which also raises the matter of Section 349 "Being Unlawfully in a Dwelling House."

At the time, the accused, known as "Saint Nicholas," but who also goes by a variety of pseudonyms, a.k.a., Kris Kringle, Saint Nick, Santa Claus, is found in possession of a large bag containing gifts ("…a bundle of toys he had flung on his back"). We are awaiting further testimony, Your Honour, as to whether or not the accused was using the toys to bribe the witness to avoid prosecution ("A wink of his eye and a twist of his head, Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread"), hence a charge of witness tampering may be pending. Further investigation is underway at the docks and customs clearance centers to discover whether or not any large shipments are missing, as the bag was filled with brand new, unwrapped toys, without price tags or manufacturer’s identification. Charges with regard to Sections 354(1) and 354(2) as well as Section 357 may be pending.

The accused while in the dwelling unit also committed a variety of provincial offences, including but not limited to vagrancy (Section 179 ), and smoking in a dwelling unit without adequate ventilation ("…the stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth, And the smoke, it encircled his head like a wreath") (City Bylaw #50061). Analysis of the residue in this pipe has been delayed, due to RCMP Lab budget cutbacks.

The accused continued his crime spree by breaking out of the dwelling unit ("And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose"), and again unlawfully operating the aircraft, clearly at an unsafe speed ("He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle and away they all flew like the down of a thistle"). Crown Counsel has contacted Agriculture Canada for advice as to exactly what speed, "down" does leave "a thistle" but we would submit it would, in all the circumstances, be an "unsafe speed." In the alternative, we would submit that such speed and agility (he was, by the witness’ admission, exceedingly "lively and quick,") may show the suspect to be guilty of the practice of magic, which we may consider further as being a possible breach of Section 365 (a). Agriculture Canada will also be consulted regarding the matter of importation of Reindeer into Canada without a licence and without inspection for Mad Reindeer disease.

The signs of obvious impairment observed by the arresting officers ("His eyes – how they twinkled! his dimples, how merry! His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!" ) have not led to a charge of Impaired Operation of an Aircraft, as the breathalyzer analysis proved negative. However, the accused by his own admission was "full of joy" and the Crown is currently investigating whether "Joy" may be a street name for any prohibited substance under either the Narcotics Control Act or the Food and Drug Act.

We must also advise the Court that a joint operation of CSIS and other international security agencies is currently underway to determine how the accused managed to violate airspace over North America without being detected. Despite numerous Immigration Act violations, the accused has not sought Refugee Status. He is claiming he resides at the "North Pole" and we understand that currently certain residents of the "North Pole" are under investigation for possible violation of child labour laws.

Notwithstanding any of the above, Your Honour, we understand as well that the accused has admitted he makes annual lists of children who are "naughty and nice," and this brings up the question of whether the accused might also be in breach of Section 366 (1)(a), being the offence of making a false document. As to how he comes to "know when [children] are sleeping and … when [they’re] awake," further investigations into possible invasions of privacy (Section 189 ) or, in the alternative, misuse of the Freedom of Information Act are currently underway.

Finally, Your Honour, despite the obvious advanced age of the accused, the Crown is opposing bail in this matter as the accused is clearly a flight risk. A psychiatric assessment is hereby requested pursuant to Section 672.11 (a)-(e) as the accused appears to be under the delusion that he does this sort of thing every year and has done so for centuries!

This completes the Crown’s submission, Your Honour. Thank you.

* * * * * * * * * *

Addendum: The Court subsequently found Santa to be an Internationally Protected Person and he has been granted Diplomatic Immunity. This determination is unanimously and internationally dubbed "The Santa Clause."

"Happy Christmas to all;
And to all, a good night!"

* * * * * * * * * *

“The Santa Clause” was written by
Robert C. Worthington & Michael Ireland
publishers of “The Fine Print – Procurement Law Review”
www.purchasinglaw.com

The bone-chilling scream split the warm summer night in two, the first half being before the scream when it was fairly balmy and calm and pleasant for those who hadn’t heard the scream at all, but not calm or balmy or even very nice for those who did hear the scream, discounting the little period of time during the actual scream itself when your ears might have been hearing it but your brain wasn’t reacting yet to let you know.

(by patricia e. presutti, Lewiston, New York)

1) How many pairs of rabbits will be produced in a year, beginning with a single pair, if in each month each pair bears a new pair, which becomes productive from the second month on?

2) What is the next number? 0,1,1,2,1,3,1,3,2,3,1,5,1,3,3,4,1,5,1,5,…

3) What is the next number? 5,17,37,5,101,5,197,257,5,…

4) On each row place a letter which can be substituted for the second letter of the words either side so that two other words are formed. When completed a word will be read downwards. What is it?

ALTER         ACHES

POINT          FIRES

BENCH       SPITE

SHAKE        SHORE

LIBEL          MINOR

Answers to the November puzzles:

1) About 83%, ie 0.83190737…, the reciprocal of Apery’s number.
2) This belongs to Ramsey theory. The upper bound is called Graham’s number and is so large it can’t be written like an ordinary number. It is vastly beyond Skewes’s number, which is 10 to the 10 to the 10 to the 34. The number of atoms in the universe is much smaller, being about 10 to the 75. Karl Sabbagh says that most experts in Ramsey theory believe the correct answer is 6. (from Sabbagh’s The Riemann Hypothesis, p 145)]
3) Reaction
4) A [the sequence consists of the first and next-to-last letters of the months]