There has just been a pair of explosions in government buildings in Oslo, Norway; one near the Prime Minister's office and one nearby Parliament. Windows in multiple buildings were blown out. Two people are confirmed dead. Police are calling it a bombing.
At some point after the explosions, shots were fired at a politically-oriented youth meeting on Utoya island, just off the coast of Oslo by a man disguised as a police officer. The meeting was well-attended by the Labor Party, the party currently in power in Norway.
Right now, most other details are still very, very sketchy.
EDIT: The death toll now sits at seven.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Random News Generator- Guatemala
Well, we should probably start with the lady who had a sinkhole open up under her bed. That happened in Guatemala City. As the linked article states, while sinkholes can happen anywhere, lots of rain and volcanic deposits make Guatemala City particularly susceptible. Eight sinkholes from the past couple years are given with the article; two of them are in Guatemala City.
How do you fix a sinkhole? There are a couple different techniques, which alternately involve dumping a whole bunch of rock into the hole, and shoring up the foundation followed by dumping a whole bunch of rock into the hole.
Alternately, you probably know that some illegal immigration into the United States originates from south of Mexico. We've already covered that here. That, of course, includes Guatemala, one of Mexico's neighbors. So today's RNG will be used to tell you that in addition to hiking, swimming, car trunks, tunnels, speedboats, trains of death and drug submarines, not to mention overstayed visas that came over with everybody else, the new mode of transportation in play in the illegal-immigration game is: zip lines.
How do you fix a sinkhole? There are a couple different techniques, which alternately involve dumping a whole bunch of rock into the hole, and shoring up the foundation followed by dumping a whole bunch of rock into the hole.
Alternately, you probably know that some illegal immigration into the United States originates from south of Mexico. We've already covered that here. That, of course, includes Guatemala, one of Mexico's neighbors. So today's RNG will be used to tell you that in addition to hiking, swimming, car trunks, tunnels, speedboats, trains of death and drug submarines, not to mention overstayed visas that came over with everybody else, the new mode of transportation in play in the illegal-immigration game is: zip lines.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Ur Mouth
One of the things we sell at work are those big letter stickers you use on your house or on signs or what have you. Every so often, some customer will come along and rearrange these stickers so as to form words or phrases, their own little unique take on the world and all its foibles.
Last night, one such person used these letters to announce to the world an earth-shattering hypothesis, something that could, if true, very well change everything we know about our civilization. According to this person, this prodigy, and I must take the utmost care in transcribing this theory to the letter, "BALLSACKINURMOUTH."
Now, for those unaware, 'ur' is a German prefix meaning original or primitive. Knowing that, what this theory clearly states is that not only did the first known mouth evolve after the invention of ball-related sports, but that a container for those balls could fit entirely inside this original, proto-mouth.
But like any potentially game-changing hypothesis, we should probably test it before we start throwing the Nobel Prize Minting Machine into overdrive so that we may shower this genius with the accolades befitting of a revelation on the scale of BALLSACKINURMOUTH.
So let's first figure out, when was this Ur Mouth conceived?
As it turns out, the origin of the mouth is caught up in a bit of a chicken-or-egg-type debate in evolutionary circles alongside the origin of the anus. Essentially, the debate is whether the anus came first and, as the gut evolved, it eventually reached the other side of the body to become a mouth; or whether the mouth evolved first and the gut eventually became an anus on the other side.
I'm not the best as deciphering the particulars here, but the focus centers around a certain part of the animal kingdom family tree. First comes bilaterians, which branch off to flatworms on one side of the tree, and protostomes and deuterostomes on the other. If none of these sound familiar except 'flatworm', that's because these aren't species. We're much higher up the classification scale, into the realm of subkingdoms and superphyla. (You were taught that it was just kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, right? Not quite. Biologists have intermediate categories too. Also, there's another category, 'domain', that sits above kingdom as of 1990.)
We're not, however, interested in which came first. What we need is when the mouth showed up. That answer seems to be just as vexing as which came first. The answer is probably somewhere in a 2008 paper in the journal Nature called "Acoel development indicates the independent evolution of the bilaterian mouth and anus", by Andreas Hejnol and Mark Q. Martindale at the University of Hawaii, but the article costs $32 to read. Just in case you have $32 for this, here you go. It, by the way, appears to put together a weird third theory: that the gut came first in two parts- one for the mouth, one for the anus- and the whole mouth-or-anus question is simply a matter of which side the gut, which would of course connect into a single whole, busted through first. What I was able to coax out of the paper without having to hand over $32- which consists of three of the tables- seems to indicate that the paper centers around an acoel flatworm, Convolutriloba longfissura.
Outside of that paper, though, the focus on learning about it appears to center around how we can more effectively murder it (PDF), as it's seen as a pest in larger saltwater aquariums. As a result, we'll need to back up to the larger class, acoela, and go from there. Acoels, as it happens, date back to primitive times. We'll take that rough figure of 'primitive times', which in this context generally means hundreds of millions, potentially billions of years ago, and move to the other end of the equation, ball-based sports.
The question is, did ball-based sports come into existence billions of years ago? If so, we'll have to try and narrow things down further somehow. If not, though, eye-opening as it may seem, the BALLSACKINURMOUTH theory will have to go by the wayside.
Figuring out the ball's invention is murky as well; its creation can't be pinpointed to any one culture in particular. (Lot of definitive answers we're getting today, aren't there?) However, like the mouth, we can pin down a range. While documentation of the usage of balls dates to the Mayan culture, China's Ts'in Dynasty, and the ancient Romans and Greeks, the earliest of the known references to a ball used for sport comes out of ancient Egypt, at around 2500 BCE. Some in the Chinese camp claim as early as 5000 BCE.
The Ts'in Dynasty game vaguely resembles soccer. Two bamboo poles were set up, and a net was strung between them, with a hole cut in the net. In order to score, the ball- made of leather and stuffed with animal fur- had to be kicked through the hole in the net. Players could not use their hands.
The ancient Egyptian game, brought up by Robert W. Henderson at the University of Illinois to dispel myths about Abner Doubleday inventing baseball, maintains that balls were used in a fertility ritual, replacing human heads. Several different makes of ball have been figured upon, including cloth balls filled with seeds, catgut wrapped in leather or deerskin, and one ball made out of linen found in a tomb, visible here. The bocce ball crowd, in an attempt to re-one-up the Chinese, pegs a stone ball as being used in ancient Egypt as early as 5200 BCE, according to hieroglyphics. Naturally, the game resembles bocce ball.
However- tragically as it is- all of these dates are nearly hundreds of millions of years more recent than 'hundreds of millions of years ago', and almost billions of years more recent than 'billions of years ago'. This is to say nothing of the sack the balls need to have been in, or the size of Ur Mouth, which considering the size of acoels is many, many times smaller than these earliest balls, much less their sack.
In fact, the year difference is so far off that it's almost a perversion of intelligence to make claims about BALLSACKINURMOUTH. It's really rather disgusting.
Last night, one such person used these letters to announce to the world an earth-shattering hypothesis, something that could, if true, very well change everything we know about our civilization. According to this person, this prodigy, and I must take the utmost care in transcribing this theory to the letter, "BALLSACKINURMOUTH."
Now, for those unaware, 'ur' is a German prefix meaning original or primitive. Knowing that, what this theory clearly states is that not only did the first known mouth evolve after the invention of ball-related sports, but that a container for those balls could fit entirely inside this original, proto-mouth.
But like any potentially game-changing hypothesis, we should probably test it before we start throwing the Nobel Prize Minting Machine into overdrive so that we may shower this genius with the accolades befitting of a revelation on the scale of BALLSACKINURMOUTH.
So let's first figure out, when was this Ur Mouth conceived?
As it turns out, the origin of the mouth is caught up in a bit of a chicken-or-egg-type debate in evolutionary circles alongside the origin of the anus. Essentially, the debate is whether the anus came first and, as the gut evolved, it eventually reached the other side of the body to become a mouth; or whether the mouth evolved first and the gut eventually became an anus on the other side.
I'm not the best as deciphering the particulars here, but the focus centers around a certain part of the animal kingdom family tree. First comes bilaterians, which branch off to flatworms on one side of the tree, and protostomes and deuterostomes on the other. If none of these sound familiar except 'flatworm', that's because these aren't species. We're much higher up the classification scale, into the realm of subkingdoms and superphyla. (You were taught that it was just kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, right? Not quite. Biologists have intermediate categories too. Also, there's another category, 'domain', that sits above kingdom as of 1990.)
We're not, however, interested in which came first. What we need is when the mouth showed up. That answer seems to be just as vexing as which came first. The answer is probably somewhere in a 2008 paper in the journal Nature called "Acoel development indicates the independent evolution of the bilaterian mouth and anus", by Andreas Hejnol and Mark Q. Martindale at the University of Hawaii, but the article costs $32 to read. Just in case you have $32 for this, here you go. It, by the way, appears to put together a weird third theory: that the gut came first in two parts- one for the mouth, one for the anus- and the whole mouth-or-anus question is simply a matter of which side the gut, which would of course connect into a single whole, busted through first. What I was able to coax out of the paper without having to hand over $32- which consists of three of the tables- seems to indicate that the paper centers around an acoel flatworm, Convolutriloba longfissura.
Outside of that paper, though, the focus on learning about it appears to center around how we can more effectively murder it (PDF), as it's seen as a pest in larger saltwater aquariums. As a result, we'll need to back up to the larger class, acoela, and go from there. Acoels, as it happens, date back to primitive times. We'll take that rough figure of 'primitive times', which in this context generally means hundreds of millions, potentially billions of years ago, and move to the other end of the equation, ball-based sports.
The question is, did ball-based sports come into existence billions of years ago? If so, we'll have to try and narrow things down further somehow. If not, though, eye-opening as it may seem, the BALLSACKINURMOUTH theory will have to go by the wayside.
Figuring out the ball's invention is murky as well; its creation can't be pinpointed to any one culture in particular. (Lot of definitive answers we're getting today, aren't there?) However, like the mouth, we can pin down a range. While documentation of the usage of balls dates to the Mayan culture, China's Ts'in Dynasty, and the ancient Romans and Greeks, the earliest of the known references to a ball used for sport comes out of ancient Egypt, at around 2500 BCE. Some in the Chinese camp claim as early as 5000 BCE.
The Ts'in Dynasty game vaguely resembles soccer. Two bamboo poles were set up, and a net was strung between them, with a hole cut in the net. In order to score, the ball- made of leather and stuffed with animal fur- had to be kicked through the hole in the net. Players could not use their hands.
The ancient Egyptian game, brought up by Robert W. Henderson at the University of Illinois to dispel myths about Abner Doubleday inventing baseball, maintains that balls were used in a fertility ritual, replacing human heads. Several different makes of ball have been figured upon, including cloth balls filled with seeds, catgut wrapped in leather or deerskin, and one ball made out of linen found in a tomb, visible here. The bocce ball crowd, in an attempt to re-one-up the Chinese, pegs a stone ball as being used in ancient Egypt as early as 5200 BCE, according to hieroglyphics. Naturally, the game resembles bocce ball.
However- tragically as it is- all of these dates are nearly hundreds of millions of years more recent than 'hundreds of millions of years ago', and almost billions of years more recent than 'billions of years ago'. This is to say nothing of the sack the balls need to have been in, or the size of Ur Mouth, which considering the size of acoels is many, many times smaller than these earliest balls, much less their sack.
In fact, the year difference is so far off that it's almost a perversion of intelligence to make claims about BALLSACKINURMOUTH. It's really rather disgusting.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Apparently, Not Still Dead
During the regime of Generalissimo Francisco Franco, a program was in place in which babies, possibly as many as 300,000, were stolen from their mothers at birth, who were told their babies had died. These were poor mothers, commonly ones who opposed Franco. The babies were then sold to families looking to adopt- some within Spain, some abroad- and all documentation either lost or falsified to make it appear as if the adopting family was the biological family.
Recently, residents of Spain have started to take steps to fix whatever damage they can, as ABC Australia's Philip Williams reports via Journeyman Pictures (which, by the way, yay, an actual name attached to one of these reports!)...
Recently, residents of Spain have started to take steps to fix whatever damage they can, as ABC Australia's Philip Williams reports via Journeyman Pictures (which, by the way, yay, an actual name attached to one of these reports!)...
Monday, July 18, 2011
Reverse Ferret
My feelings on the News Corp hacking scandal shouldn't really have to be guessed at. Nor should I waste time mincing words. Assuming News Corp is guilty as charged, I want them to go down and go down HARD. Hacking the phones of your subjects has no place in journalism or decent humanity. Add that to your subjects being murder victims and 9/11 victims, and your hacking actively impeding the investigations of same, and to say the least, you have no place in the journalism industry. Or polite society.
Bribing the cops to give you your scoops? Seriously, come on.
That established: one of my new favorite phrases has come out of this whole sorry affair. You know, one of those phrases you say you're going to start working into everyday conversation, and then you actually do that maybe twice before realizing you have no place for it in everyday conversation. That phrase is 'reverse ferret'.
As the story goes, Kelvin Mackenzie, former editor of The Sun, loved to go after people. When he had a target in his sights, he'd instruct his newsroom to "put a ferret up their trousers." At the same time, though, Mackenzie wasn't stupid. He knew that sometimes, taking this tack, he would have to back off lest The Sun get into trouble, legally, financially, politically or in the court of public opinion. When The Sun was at risk in this respect, he'd go into the newsroom and yell "Reverse ferret!" This was the signal for The Sun to play nice until they were out of danger.
You'll hear the phrase a fair bit over the course of the scandal. First, 'reverse ferret' is the most wonderful phrase in the world and every excuse should be taken to use it as much as possible. Reverse ferret. Reverse ferret. Reverse ferret. Second, the meaning of the phrase- back off the outrage and play nice- describes why Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp., is completely and utterly screwed. One of his holdings needs a specific, special emergency phrase just to tell them not to be jerks.
Translation: there's really no apology or measure of restitution Murdoch could possibly make to get himself out of this mess on his own terms. Any such measure will simply be called a reverse ferret and all investigations (oh, the glorious, glorious investigations) will simply continue on schedule.
Case in point, take Rebekah Brooks, editor of News of the World when the catalyst for this entire saga, the hacking of the phone of murder victim Milly Dowler, occurred. When Murdoch closed News of the World, the very first thing that crossed people's minds was that it was a move to protect Brooks. There was no celebration, no relief, no 'this is a positive step' editorials. No reaction whatsoever that would have signified a successful reverse ferret. The stink was not with News of the World, even though it was there too. The target was Brooks herself.
A few days ago, Brooks resigned from News Corp. Earlier in the scandal, that might- MIGHT, not a guarantee- have worked as a reverse ferret. Now, though, it's too late to be a successful fix. Enough time had passed to where the scandal had spread to every corner of Murdoch's empire. Brooks' departure was characterized by The Independent as "After 52 years, mogul's ally quits to protect jewel of US empire".
The phrase 'to protect'. Meaning, 'that's nice and all, but we have a bigger target in mind and we're not going away'. And the target is now Murdoch himself. Considering that News Corp. is centralized around Murdoch- structured to be so- to the degree that nothing really gets done without his say-so, that's a gigantic threat. Murdoch's been able to take a slow, steady stream of loyal opposition, but he hasn't dealt with something on the scale of the FBI and a united British Parliament going after him simultaneously.
So what happens to him, ultimately? On the American side of the Atlantic, the major criticism in my social circles is that while England may savage him, America won't care enough, his supporters are entrenched too deeply, for him to suffer in America or for Fox News, his most prominent American holding, to take any true damage.
My rebuttal is twofold. First: reverse ferret.
Sorry. Couldn't help it. First, the 9/11 victim-hacking aspect of this story hasn't fully unfolded yet. There is speculation, investigation, but so far nothing solid. So far, all the official, confirmed aspects of this scandal are UK-contained, and so given America's inclination to only care about America, more airtime has been given over here to Casey Anthony. (Which is downright shameful.) If the 9/11-victim link goes official, though, if the name of an affected victim comes out, well, all bets are off over here. There's no way that can't blow up... at least outside of Fox News, which is Murdoch-owned and thus has every incentive to try to save itself. Those who only watch Fox News still won't have a clue, but they're not the ones conducting the investigations. And the ones conducting the investigations are the ones Murdoch has to worry about.
Second, the kind of empire Murdoch has built isn't really structured so that he can just run to the other side of the Atlantic. If Murdoch goes down hard enough in Britain, it won't matter what he has going for him in America. Rupert Murdoch does not have clones running around. He is one man. If that one man, that one man that the entire empire is structured around, is taken down, the whole fortress is liable to crumble in his absence, like a video game boss whose lair collapses the second you beat him. News Corp., in Murdoch's absence, could do anything from undergoing a semi-orderly transition to shattering into a billion pieces.
And every new wrinkle, every new body found buried, only fuels the investigation further and digs the hooks in deeper, making Murdoch's ultimate departure more and more likely. For example, this newly-breaking news about the original News of the World whistleblower ever-so-magically turning up dead. The police do not, at least initially, consider it suspicious, but even official statements from the police have been rendered suspect, with multiple high-ranking officers of New Scotland Yard under investigation themselves for their roles in the scandal.
As deep as Murdoch's problems are in Britain, whether he suffers fallout in America is almost beside the point. He is liable to suffer a fall in America merely by proxy, rendered unable to operate in America to the degree he has been accustomed due to the damage suffered in Britain. It's all the same empire in the end.
So could he make an orderly transition to save News Corp from maximum damage (and there's almost no telling what 'maximum damage' might entail)? Given that he's 80 years old, he's certainly made plans. He would prefer to hand it down to his children. However, they've all got problems of their own, ranging from inexperience (42-year-old daughter Elisabeth) to past corporate failures (39-year-old son Lachlan) to being consumed by the scandal themselves (38-year-old son James). Elisabeth has been spotted verbally attacking James, saying that he "fucked the company". Shareholder pressure exists to hand control to someone from outside the family entirely, someone that doesn't have the tainted Murdoch name. Were that to happen, whoever took over almost certainly would not run things in so centralized a manner.
Which would probably be the biggest reverse ferret of all.
Bribing the cops to give you your scoops? Seriously, come on.
That established: one of my new favorite phrases has come out of this whole sorry affair. You know, one of those phrases you say you're going to start working into everyday conversation, and then you actually do that maybe twice before realizing you have no place for it in everyday conversation. That phrase is 'reverse ferret'.
As the story goes, Kelvin Mackenzie, former editor of The Sun, loved to go after people. When he had a target in his sights, he'd instruct his newsroom to "put a ferret up their trousers." At the same time, though, Mackenzie wasn't stupid. He knew that sometimes, taking this tack, he would have to back off lest The Sun get into trouble, legally, financially, politically or in the court of public opinion. When The Sun was at risk in this respect, he'd go into the newsroom and yell "Reverse ferret!" This was the signal for The Sun to play nice until they were out of danger.
You'll hear the phrase a fair bit over the course of the scandal. First, 'reverse ferret' is the most wonderful phrase in the world and every excuse should be taken to use it as much as possible. Reverse ferret. Reverse ferret. Reverse ferret. Second, the meaning of the phrase- back off the outrage and play nice- describes why Rupert Murdoch, head of News Corp., is completely and utterly screwed. One of his holdings needs a specific, special emergency phrase just to tell them not to be jerks.
Translation: there's really no apology or measure of restitution Murdoch could possibly make to get himself out of this mess on his own terms. Any such measure will simply be called a reverse ferret and all investigations (oh, the glorious, glorious investigations) will simply continue on schedule.
Case in point, take Rebekah Brooks, editor of News of the World when the catalyst for this entire saga, the hacking of the phone of murder victim Milly Dowler, occurred. When Murdoch closed News of the World, the very first thing that crossed people's minds was that it was a move to protect Brooks. There was no celebration, no relief, no 'this is a positive step' editorials. No reaction whatsoever that would have signified a successful reverse ferret. The stink was not with News of the World, even though it was there too. The target was Brooks herself.
A few days ago, Brooks resigned from News Corp. Earlier in the scandal, that might- MIGHT, not a guarantee- have worked as a reverse ferret. Now, though, it's too late to be a successful fix. Enough time had passed to where the scandal had spread to every corner of Murdoch's empire. Brooks' departure was characterized by The Independent as "After 52 years, mogul's ally quits to protect jewel of US empire".
The phrase 'to protect'. Meaning, 'that's nice and all, but we have a bigger target in mind and we're not going away'. And the target is now Murdoch himself. Considering that News Corp. is centralized around Murdoch- structured to be so- to the degree that nothing really gets done without his say-so, that's a gigantic threat. Murdoch's been able to take a slow, steady stream of loyal opposition, but he hasn't dealt with something on the scale of the FBI and a united British Parliament going after him simultaneously.
So what happens to him, ultimately? On the American side of the Atlantic, the major criticism in my social circles is that while England may savage him, America won't care enough, his supporters are entrenched too deeply, for him to suffer in America or for Fox News, his most prominent American holding, to take any true damage.
My rebuttal is twofold. First: reverse ferret.
Sorry. Couldn't help it. First, the 9/11 victim-hacking aspect of this story hasn't fully unfolded yet. There is speculation, investigation, but so far nothing solid. So far, all the official, confirmed aspects of this scandal are UK-contained, and so given America's inclination to only care about America, more airtime has been given over here to Casey Anthony. (Which is downright shameful.) If the 9/11-victim link goes official, though, if the name of an affected victim comes out, well, all bets are off over here. There's no way that can't blow up... at least outside of Fox News, which is Murdoch-owned and thus has every incentive to try to save itself. Those who only watch Fox News still won't have a clue, but they're not the ones conducting the investigations. And the ones conducting the investigations are the ones Murdoch has to worry about.
Second, the kind of empire Murdoch has built isn't really structured so that he can just run to the other side of the Atlantic. If Murdoch goes down hard enough in Britain, it won't matter what he has going for him in America. Rupert Murdoch does not have clones running around. He is one man. If that one man, that one man that the entire empire is structured around, is taken down, the whole fortress is liable to crumble in his absence, like a video game boss whose lair collapses the second you beat him. News Corp., in Murdoch's absence, could do anything from undergoing a semi-orderly transition to shattering into a billion pieces.
And every new wrinkle, every new body found buried, only fuels the investigation further and digs the hooks in deeper, making Murdoch's ultimate departure more and more likely. For example, this newly-breaking news about the original News of the World whistleblower ever-so-magically turning up dead. The police do not, at least initially, consider it suspicious, but even official statements from the police have been rendered suspect, with multiple high-ranking officers of New Scotland Yard under investigation themselves for their roles in the scandal.
As deep as Murdoch's problems are in Britain, whether he suffers fallout in America is almost beside the point. He is liable to suffer a fall in America merely by proxy, rendered unable to operate in America to the degree he has been accustomed due to the damage suffered in Britain. It's all the same empire in the end.
So could he make an orderly transition to save News Corp from maximum damage (and there's almost no telling what 'maximum damage' might entail)? Given that he's 80 years old, he's certainly made plans. He would prefer to hand it down to his children. However, they've all got problems of their own, ranging from inexperience (42-year-old daughter Elisabeth) to past corporate failures (39-year-old son Lachlan) to being consumed by the scandal themselves (38-year-old son James). Elisabeth has been spotted verbally attacking James, saying that he "fucked the company". Shareholder pressure exists to hand control to someone from outside the family entirely, someone that doesn't have the tainted Murdoch name. Were that to happen, whoever took over almost certainly would not run things in so centralized a manner.
Which would probably be the biggest reverse ferret of all.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
We Love You (name of city), Good Night!
I want to sink some time into the club-soccer book.
So you're going to get a List X In Y Minutes quiz. Mental Floss, using the 2010 Census, gives you ten minutes to name the most populated cities in America.
Specifically, the largest city beginning with each letter of the alphabet. (My score: 16. I don't know how in blazes I came up with the answer for X.)
Or, if naming those cities is too easy, head to Sporcle and name the 50 largest cities in 2009... that end in 'ville'. You have seven minutes for that. If that seems short, don't fret it. You could have 70 minutes and you would not get them all. (I was brazenly looking through an atlas the whole time and only managed 24.)
Or you can spend 20 minutes trying to work through as many of the 7,500 largest cities on Earth as you can. To make it interesting, the cities are grouped by population into chunks of 25. Give one answer in the group, and you're given credit for the entire group. That makes for 300 groups you have to hit. Tagging one of the 6.7 million-plus cities is child's play. Hitting the mid-64,000 group, that's a bit harder. (Haven't tried this one.)
So you're going to get a List X In Y Minutes quiz. Mental Floss, using the 2010 Census, gives you ten minutes to name the most populated cities in America.
Specifically, the largest city beginning with each letter of the alphabet. (My score: 16. I don't know how in blazes I came up with the answer for X.)
Or, if naming those cities is too easy, head to Sporcle and name the 50 largest cities in 2009... that end in 'ville'. You have seven minutes for that. If that seems short, don't fret it. You could have 70 minutes and you would not get them all. (I was brazenly looking through an atlas the whole time and only managed 24.)
Or you can spend 20 minutes trying to work through as many of the 7,500 largest cities on Earth as you can. To make it interesting, the cities are grouped by population into chunks of 25. Give one answer in the group, and you're given credit for the entire group. That makes for 300 groups you have to hit. Tagging one of the 6.7 million-plus cities is child's play. Hitting the mid-64,000 group, that's a bit harder. (Haven't tried this one.)
Friday, July 15, 2011
We'll Put You In One Of Those Crooked Homes We Saw On 60 Minutes
My grandma, Gerda Allermann, died back in 2007. For years leading up to that, she was in a nursing home, Golden Living in Watertown. By that time, we didn't want her in Golden Living. For one, we- and she- would greatly have preferred she die at home. Second, Golden Living was not a good nursing home. There was little stimulation beyond our visits to the point that she was getting bedsores, the physical rehab she was supposed to be getting never happened despite endless prodding from us, and eventually she was left so much to her own devices that Alzheimer's was setting in by the end.
We didn't get her out mainly because she didn't want to go to the other main nursing home in town, and she was the one in charge. By the time we had found a suitable replacement home nearer Milwaukee, she'd taken a turn for the worse and could no longer be moved that kind of distance. She didn't have long after that.
My aunt later found Golden Living listed in one of those ads that was gathering up people for a class-action lawsuit. Last I heard, they're still battling it out in the courts.
As poor as that treatment was, though, there are worse nursing homes. The worst of the worst are listed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as "Special Focus Facilities" or SFF's. The idea behind this listing is , normally a facility is inspected once every two years. However, some places would be shown where they're going wrong, make just enough changes to be in compliance, but then by the time the next two-year inspection rolled around, they'd lapsed back into old habits. On that knowledge, the SFF designation was created, under which the facility is inspected every six months until such time as they either show sustained, significant improvement or they're kicked out of the Medicare/Medicaid program, upon which they usually shut down. If they stay open regardless, focus switches to getting the inhabitants somewhere else.
There are five kinds of places listed in the SFF program, the most recent update of which is shown here in full in a PDF file. These are: new listings; facilities that have shown significant improvement since their listing; facilities that haven't; facilities recently graduated from the program; and facilities that got kicked out of Medicare/Medicaid. According to the stat sheet, about half the facilities listed end up graduating within 24-30 months, while 16% are kicked out of Medicare/Medicaid.
By 'significant improvement', as the stat sheet puts it, the CMS "means that the most recent standard survey (and any later compliant investigations" found no deficiencies in which there was actual harm to any resident, and no deficiency in which there was systemic potential for harm".
On that information, from that list, we're going to single out some places: the places that have been kicked out- there are three- and the facilities in the 'not improved' category that have been on the list for the longest time.
While there is caution advised in the stat sheet that there could be some lag time in the data and that there is no substitute for actually visiting the facility yourself, Golden Living wasn't even on the list and my grandma got treated with neglect, so I am advising regardless of lag that if you or someone you know has a loved one in any of the facilities about to be named, get them out. Get them to literally any other nursing home in America.
And if you're considering putting a loved one in a nursing home, I advise first heading here and seeing how places in your area stack up against each other.
First... well, first, here's Golden Living's readout. That done, we go to the ones kicked out of Medicare/Medicaid, and the deficiencies that caused them to get kicked out. For reference, if you see 'actual harm' and 'immediate jeopardy', the latter is the more serious charge.
Arbor Place of Clinton, Clinton, KY
James S. Taylor Memorial Home, Louisville, KY (closed last December)
Fort Worth Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Fort Worth, TX
And then, the 15 'no improvement' facilities that have been listed the longest, in descending order of months listed as of June 16, each linked to their catalog of exactly what it is that they've done or not done. This is not necessarily the worst 15 of the bunch, but they are the 15 that have had the longest chance to fix things and haven't: If they're not the worst, they're close enough.
1. Hidden Hills Health and Rehab Center, Omaha, NE (77 months) (also known as 6 years, 5 months)
2. Embassy Health Care Center, Wilmington, IL (46 months)
3. Eagle Pointe, Parkersburg, WV (41 months)
4. Mapleshire Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Morgantown, WV (37 months)
5. The Oaks of Mid City Nursing and Rehab Center, Baton Rouge, LA (32 months)
6. Mount Royal Towers, Birmingham, AL (30 months)
7. Seven Hills Health and Rehabilitation Center, Tallahassee, FL (30 months)
8. Autumn Healthcare of Zanesville, Zanesville, OH (30 months)
9. Cedarwood Villa, Red Lodge, MT (29 months)
10. Pueblo Care and Rehab, Pueblo, CO (26 months)
11. Legend Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Gardner, MA (26 months)
12. St. Camillus Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Stamford, CT (24 months)
13. Westview of Derby, Derby, KS (23 months)
14. Britthaven of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (23 months)
15. Plaquemine Manor Nursing Home, Plaquemine, LA (22 months)
We didn't get her out mainly because she didn't want to go to the other main nursing home in town, and she was the one in charge. By the time we had found a suitable replacement home nearer Milwaukee, she'd taken a turn for the worse and could no longer be moved that kind of distance. She didn't have long after that.
My aunt later found Golden Living listed in one of those ads that was gathering up people for a class-action lawsuit. Last I heard, they're still battling it out in the courts.
As poor as that treatment was, though, there are worse nursing homes. The worst of the worst are listed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as "Special Focus Facilities" or SFF's. The idea behind this listing is , normally a facility is inspected once every two years. However, some places would be shown where they're going wrong, make just enough changes to be in compliance, but then by the time the next two-year inspection rolled around, they'd lapsed back into old habits. On that knowledge, the SFF designation was created, under which the facility is inspected every six months until such time as they either show sustained, significant improvement or they're kicked out of the Medicare/Medicaid program, upon which they usually shut down. If they stay open regardless, focus switches to getting the inhabitants somewhere else.
There are five kinds of places listed in the SFF program, the most recent update of which is shown here in full in a PDF file. These are: new listings; facilities that have shown significant improvement since their listing; facilities that haven't; facilities recently graduated from the program; and facilities that got kicked out of Medicare/Medicaid. According to the stat sheet, about half the facilities listed end up graduating within 24-30 months, while 16% are kicked out of Medicare/Medicaid.
By 'significant improvement', as the stat sheet puts it, the CMS "means that the most recent standard survey (and any later compliant investigations" found no deficiencies in which there was actual harm to any resident, and no deficiency in which there was systemic potential for harm".
On that information, from that list, we're going to single out some places: the places that have been kicked out- there are three- and the facilities in the 'not improved' category that have been on the list for the longest time.
While there is caution advised in the stat sheet that there could be some lag time in the data and that there is no substitute for actually visiting the facility yourself, Golden Living wasn't even on the list and my grandma got treated with neglect, so I am advising regardless of lag that if you or someone you know has a loved one in any of the facilities about to be named, get them out. Get them to literally any other nursing home in America.
And if you're considering putting a loved one in a nursing home, I advise first heading here and seeing how places in your area stack up against each other.
First... well, first, here's Golden Living's readout. That done, we go to the ones kicked out of Medicare/Medicaid, and the deficiencies that caused them to get kicked out. For reference, if you see 'actual harm' and 'immediate jeopardy', the latter is the more serious charge.
Arbor Place of Clinton, Clinton, KY
James S. Taylor Memorial Home, Louisville, KY (closed last December)
Fort Worth Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Fort Worth, TX
And then, the 15 'no improvement' facilities that have been listed the longest, in descending order of months listed as of June 16, each linked to their catalog of exactly what it is that they've done or not done. This is not necessarily the worst 15 of the bunch, but they are the 15 that have had the longest chance to fix things and haven't: If they're not the worst, they're close enough.
1. Hidden Hills Health and Rehab Center, Omaha, NE (77 months) (also known as 6 years, 5 months)
2. Embassy Health Care Center, Wilmington, IL (46 months)
3. Eagle Pointe, Parkersburg, WV (41 months)
4. Mapleshire Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Morgantown, WV (37 months)
5. The Oaks of Mid City Nursing and Rehab Center, Baton Rouge, LA (32 months)
6. Mount Royal Towers, Birmingham, AL (30 months)
7. Seven Hills Health and Rehabilitation Center, Tallahassee, FL (30 months)
8. Autumn Healthcare of Zanesville, Zanesville, OH (30 months)
9. Cedarwood Villa, Red Lodge, MT (29 months)
10. Pueblo Care and Rehab, Pueblo, CO (26 months)
11. Legend Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Gardner, MA (26 months)
12. St. Camillus Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Stamford, CT (24 months)
13. Westview of Derby, Derby, KS (23 months)
14. Britthaven of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (23 months)
15. Plaquemine Manor Nursing Home, Plaquemine, LA (22 months)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)