Yeah, Sanford should go. I'd think he would have the decency to resign, but if not a public impeachment would be appropriate. The issue isn't that he had an extramarital affair. Fine, whatever, his wife kicked him out. But in skipping out to Argentina, he left SC without a constitutionally mandated leader. I wonder if there has ever been a case like this, where a governor was surreptitiously out of communication for a week, let alone out of the country. The man was completely incommunicado.

I don't think the response should be tempered by the fact that he wasn't called out of necessity during that week. Emergencies arise unpredictably, and it is his sworn responsibility to be there when they do. Where will he be when one does arise? Sanford walked out, turned his back on SC, and I believe they should forgive his failings, but also remove him from office.

Patrick,

I know this stuff chaps your hide, but you'll probably want to set the record straight with the BBC and even other transportation industry publishers about the correct terminology for Pilots and their first officers...

This is from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8109327.stm

The fact that a Continental airlines flight from Brussels to Newark landed safely, despite the death of the pilot, is no surprise, says David Learmount, operations and safety editor of Flight International magazine.

That's what co-pilots are for, he says - to stand in for the pilot in case of emergency.

And it goes on like that.

I liked this interview. There was a lot to think about in it. In relationship to what was discussed in the interview and the letters, the presence of a correlation is not the same as a cause. To my knowledge, depression, anxiety and metabolism have not been found to cause obesity even though they are correlated. And it makes sense that they can not be the root cause. As was pointed out in the interview mean weight is now increasing throughout an individual's life and not hitting some stable point, as was the previous norm. What that stable weight might be is likely affected by metabolism, or changes to it by depression. But that's not the case.

And before you get too caught up on metabolism as the root cause, just remember that it should be fairly straight forward to establish a pattern of appropriate caloric intake to meet an individual's metabolic needs. Moreover, compensation between metabolic needs and caloric intake should be maintainable. At least it used to be maintainable, which is something discussed in the interview.

Among the companies trying to come up with a pharmacological treatment to obesity, one point has become crystal clear. Weight regulation is a Gordian knot involving several neurological and physical feed back mechanisms. The dopanergic system seems to be a principle driver for obesity, but once the stimuli/response pattern is firmly established, it is difficult to control by just removing the stimuli. Although, this probably suggests one reason some people are able to control their weight better than others, as the sensitivity to dopenergic stimulation varies from person to person.

brightstar2, that line of reasoning always make me smile. The upward trend in obesity began well before GMOs were conceived. Sure, they may have an effect, but it would be insignificant relative to the effect of that yummy cheesy goodness. Think about it.

I'm reeling from the testosterone-fest. But sadly, there is probably enough truth in it to make the dullness of our ordinary lives stand out in start contrast. Anyway, as a guy with no car, let alone a Gulfstream, it's nice to know that someone is doing the dirty work of recovering dead-beat millionaires' toys. Bravo.

First a question: Is Glenallen Walken really "our undercover conservative," as he's billed every week? That would imply that he shares something with us (goals, ideals, agenda) but has ventured to our adversary's camp to gather information for us. As it is, that does not appear to be the case. And while he is anonymous, he might be better described as being undercover for the wingnut faction he represents.

Then a comment: I live in a country with 'socialized' medicine. And while I can say that the general level of care is less than that received by a US resident on a PPO plan, it's not much different than the various managed care HMO's available. Moreover, it's infinitely better than that received by those not covered by a health care plan. Also, companies have the option of paying for higher level service either through the national plan or third-party insurers. So while I wouldn't describe it as being an ideal situation, it is pretty good. The basic health care needs of all residents are met, while access to higher-level or specialized medicine can be provided.

Furthermore, I can not see for the life of me why the republicans are so against constructing a viable universal health care plan. It's not just the poor and underemployed that benefit from it, many of our largest companies will also benefit. Removing the costs of health insurance from companies' balance sheet will stand to significantly improve their profitability. Not just in reducing the cost of a current FTE, but also in reducing legacy costs of the companies that continue to pay health benefits to their retirees.

Patrick, I like your column, especially the technical parts of it. But this topic has well reached the been-there, done-that stage, time to move on. I'm not saying you have to make like Bob Mould and take up electronica, but there is the danger of becoming as repetitious as Johnny Rotten, if you catch my drift.