Fwd: Today's Joke: Four engineers were arguing about what type of ...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: A Prairie Home Companion <no-reply@americanpublicmedia.org>
Date: Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 3:49 AM
Subject: Today's Joke: Four engineers were arguing about what type of ...
To: yes@therainbow.com


Pretty Good Joke of the Day from A Prairie Home Companion®

Four engineers were arguing about what type of engineer God was. The mechanical engineer said "God had to be a mechanical engineer." He went on saying look at the human body, it's a marvel of engineering with all the levers and joints. He said we can't build a machine that is capable of as much beauty in motion as a ballerina.

The electrical engineer said "God must be an electrical engineer, just look at the amazing way humans control their bodies with electrical impulses conducted along the nerves. The other thing is the brain, it is essentially billions of electrical connections."

The chemical engineer spoke up and said "God must be a chemical engineer." He went on to say none of the motion would be possible without the amazing chemical processes that take in food and convert it to energy to move muscles and control it all with electro/chemical processes that operate the nerves and brain.

The civil engineer spoke up next saying only a civil engineer would put a waste disposal system in the middle of a recreational area.

From JOhn Lord, Scarborough, Maine


More Jokes  |   Submit a Joke




Duets 2 gathers outstanding performances from the show's archives, including: Garrison Keillor and Sara Watkins, The Every Brothers, Emmylou Harris and Mark Knopfler, Robin and Linda Williams, Gillian Welch and David Rawlings among others.

Order Today!


You received this e-mail because you subscribed or because someone with an amazing sense of humor forwarded it to you. If you wish, you may unsubscribe at any time. This e-mail was sent to the following address: yes@therainbow.com

This newsletter is sent from an unmonitored email address. Do not reply. Please submit your questions and comments to our contact form, or send an email to phc@mpr.org

© 2016 American Public Media. 480 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101 USA.   Privacy policy

 

Crazy behavior can be very logical!

PANTHEON, JANUARY 2016We have a tendency to judge craziness at face value. Why do people scream at invisible entities, eat dirt and paper, or loiter on street corners muttering about the Devil? Well, because they’re crazy, right?

But what if we didn’t accept that answer so easily and instead asked the question: Why is that person acting so bizarrely? For neurologists, “crazy” isn’t a diagnosis. It’s a symptom. The key is to look into the brain and pinpoint the cause of that symptom. What I have found, time after time, is that once we discover that underlying cause, abnormal behavior can be viewed as a reasonable, even logical, form of compensation.

I discuss this perspective on mental illness in my latest book, NeuroLogic: The Brain’s Hidden Rationale Behind Our Irrational Behavior.

Consider the following two people, each of whom exhibits a unique form of mental illness. The first is convinced she’s dead, and won’t believe anyone who tells her otherwise. She carries a diagnosis of Cotard delusion, or “walking corpse syndrome.” The second is cheating on his wife. . . with his wife. He believes that the woman in bed with him is his mistress, and he begs her not to divulge their “affair” to his wife. He has Capgras syndrome, in which the afflicted believe that the people around them have been replaced by physically identical imposters.

Surprisingly, both disorders have the same underlying neurological deficit: damage to the border between the temporal and parietal lobes. Injuries to this region disrupt crucial communication between the sensory system, responsible for perception, and the limbic system, which is responsible for emotional processing.

Normally, these two systems in the brain cooperate to process not only the appearance of a familiar face, but also a vast array of emotions ranging from overt feelings of love, fear, or jealousy to the subtlest sense of familiarity and shared experience. But when a schism develops between the appearance of faces and that intimate feeling of recognition they’re supposed to trigger, you feel a cold, emotional distance from everyone you know. The person in bed with you looks like your spouse, but you know in your heart that she isn’t. Family and friends who should look familiar don’t feel familiar. No longer connected to anyone in your life, you feel removed from the world. How would you logically explain that scenario to yourself?

It sounds a lot like death, at least the way death is represented in popular culture. Hence, some patients begin to believe that they have passed from this world, and eventually end up with a diagnosis of Cotard delusion. Another subset of patients might reasonably conclude that it is not they themselves who have changed, but the people around them. The patient thinks to himself: “This woman doesn’t feel like my wife, so she must not be my wife. So who is she, and why is she in my bed? I must be cheating.” Arriving at this explanation earns him the diagnosis of Capgras syndrome.

Seen this way, these two diagnoses are surprisingly logical ways to explain the same pathology. Those with a tendency toward depression and nihilism tend to claim that they are dead. Those with a more paranoid personality tends to direct the blame outward, believing that the people around them have been replaced by imposters (or, in this case, a mistress). In both cases, the perceived situation is far more bizarre than the patient. The stories they come up with are a form of compensation—coping mechanisms that help make sense of an utterly confusing situation. Given such bewildering circumstances, the behaviors aren’t that unreasonable. You might even call them logical.

McConnell admits things have been better under Obama - but

GOP leader: Americans ‘probably’ better off in Obama era

01/14/16 04:00 PM—UPDATED 01/14/16 04:54 PM
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was asked this week if he’s prepared to give President Obama any credit for the economic recovery after the Great Recession. The Republican leader balked, arguing in ways that made no sense at all that he’s more inclined to credit the Federal Reserve.
 
Would Ryan’s counterpart in the upper chamber have better luck with a similar question? Yahoo News this week sat down with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who also commented on the nation’s economic progress in the Obama era.
McConnell acknowledged that Americans are “probably” better off than they were when Obama took office in January 2009 – an unusual concession by a leading Republican at a time when the party’s presidential candidates sound like they aren’t sure the country will still be standing by Election Day. But he quickly added the caveat that “that’s not the way to measure it” because the Democrat took office in the middle of a devastating global financial meltdown. […]
 
[McConnell] predicted that it will be “a really tough sell” for the Democratic presidential nominee “to make the argument that we want four more years just like the last eight.”
The good news is, this is marginally less silly than Paul Ryan’s response. The bad news is, it’s still awfully difficult to take his assessment seriously.
 
First, let’s dispatch with “probably.” By literally every metric, the United States is in vastly better shape than when President Obama was first inaugurated. To believe otherwise is obvious insanity.
 
Second, it’s rather amusing to see McConnell say economic progress doesn’t really count because “that’s not the way to measure it.” No? Pray tell, if we overlook progress on jobs, economic growth, wages, manufacturing, and the stock market, what is the way to measure it?
 
I suspect what the GOP Senate leader means is that, given where Obama started, we had nowhere to go but up. There’s some truth to that, but the argument is still deeply flawed, in part because Republicans said the president’s policies wouldn’t rescue the economy from the Great Recession (and they did), and in part because the circumstances still don’t work in Republicans’ favor.
 
In effect, McConnell is arguing, “Obama’s Republican predecessor left him an economic catastrophe, and the president succeeded in cleaning up the mess, but that’s not the way to measure his record.”
 
I suspect the White House would disagree.
 
As for the 2016 cycle, I can’t speak to what the American mainstream may or may not want, but to hear McConnell tell it, voters won’t want “four more years just like the last eight.” Perhaps the senator could be more specific. Does he think Americans want higher unemployment? Fewer families with health insurance? A higher deficit?
 
What is it about the last eight years that we’re supposed to want less of

Ben Carson, in his own words

Ben Carson is a renowned pediatric neurosurgeon and Republican contender for the White House in 2016. Here’s his take on Obamacare, homosexuality and more, in his own words. - http://wapo.st/1zoDMww

I love great art, no matter the medium.

Executive orders - Obama has issued the least!

For a better browsing experience, please upgrade your browser.

President Obama is due to announce an executive action Thursday, one that will change the legal status of millions of immigrants and is likely to be remembered as a major effort to change the country’s immigration system. The action would reportedly allow up to 4 million undocumented immigrants legal work status, and an additional 1 million protection from deportation. It would be one of the most wide-reaching executive actions in history.

That has made Republicans furious. The New York Times has a good roundup of the reaction, including quotes from Sens. John Cornyn (“I believe his unilateral action, which is unconstitutional and illegal, will deeply harm our prospects for immigration reform”) and Tom Coburn (“The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation”). The spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner has called the president “Emperor Obama,” implying that the executive action is an unlawful decree, and Sen. Ted Cruz said on Fox News that “the president is behaving in an unprecedented way.”

If it’s unprecedented, it’s because of the scope of the executive action, not the executive action itself. For decades, executive orders have been a fairly common tool for U.S. presidents. We looked at data from the American Presidency Project and found that the use of executive orders peaked in the era of the New Deal (FDR set the record) and has been on the decline since. In the past 100 years, Democrats have used them more than Republicans. Here’s every president’s tally per year that he served in office.

mehta-datalab-executiveorders

Of the executive orders since 1956 that addressed immigration, the most wide-reaching was President George H.W. Bush’s Family Fairnessplan. As Danny Vinik said at the New Republic, conservatives are noting that Bush’s action expanded upon congressional intent, but Obama’s would be in defiance of it.