I love the general premise behind Happy Feet, and, if pitched in a single sentence, it plays well: Everyone in the world but the lead character is born with a beautiful singing voice, while the lead is born tone-deaf, but with a gift for dance.

The problem? In the animated world of Happy Feet, the expression "everyone in the world" refers to "every emperor penguin in the world." The picture comes off as a Greenpeace production of Moulin Rouge on Ice!, and its list of awards makes a mockery of the awards industry. Surely its preachy, zero tolerance view of fishing didn't hurt.

Yet I still can't get past the idea of the film being written as a fable. Elijah (a person, for the love of Mike) is born into a world where everyone can sing and no one can dance. No one has even heard of dancing. The entire educational system is shaped around singing and writing songs. Special tutorial sessions are available for late bloomers but no one, and we mean no one is born without the gift.

Any takers?

(This post presupposes the reader's knowledge of the film Memento.)

Roughly half-way through the film, just past the chapter 6 marker on the DVD release, Leonard shows up at Natalie's house, agitated after a prolonged chase, fight and interrogation sequence with Dodd. She calms him down and almost immediately tells him that she, too, has lost someone, and will help him find this "Teddy." It is dusk outside. From there:

--Natalie undresses him and makes nicey-nice about Leonard's tattoos
--They ostensibly have sex
--She ostensibly drifts off and falls asleep on his chest
--He monologues her for a while about his condition and grief
--He walks straight to his clothes and finds Natalie's picture, and writes almost word-for-word what she said earlier, "She has lost someone too, she will help you out of pity."

By this point in the film, it is the middle of the night. Therefore an hour has passed, at the very least. Much more likely three to four hours have passed. By now the audience has seen him forget his circumstances in the middle of being chased by a stranger with a gun. We have seen him scammed into paying for two hotel rooms. We have seen him forget who he is talking to in a telephone conversation. So why does his memory -- which resets within minutes, even seconds -- last for several hours during this scene with Natalie?

The possible reasons are obvious:

1. He does not have a memory condition after all. It is simply a pretext and a cover to achieve other things.
2. He has a memory condition, but it is not nearly as bad as he lets on.
3. He has a memory condition, but he controls it as much as it controls him.
4. There is an error in the script.

The last one seems unlikely. My bet is on the first. Most interesting are # 1 and # 3, although most of you will probably opt for # 2. I hope to post more on the various inconsistencies in the film in the coming weeks.

This is how Lou Dobbs describes colony collapse disorder, the worldwide mystery wherein billions of bees are simply vanishing, leaving behind neither carcasses nor disease.

In my experience, every time you hear the words "crisis" or "reform," it's time to put your hand on your wallet.

Ron Bailey with Reason Magazine has done some interesting work on the subject. He finds that biotech crops have been fingered as suspects, as have cell phones. He discounts both theories.

I like this comment from that last link (typos in the original are cleaned up for clarity): USDA studies suggest that 250-300 orchard bees can do as much pollinating as a hive of honeybees, which numbers about 30-40,000. The trick is for farmers to encourage these bees to the property.

The first, most intuitive, and probably correct answer is no. But I have a strange counterexample. Yesterday I took the MBTI again after posting the string of INFP jokes (jokes for which my wife gave me That Look -- but hey, it's not like I wrote them myself).

For years my results indicated an INFP profile. But yesterday they indicated an INFJ profile. Not a big difference, but a difference enough. Interested, and self-interested, I went back and reviewed the hinge questions, those that, before today, I would have answered differently, giving me different results and, ostensibly, marking a shift in personality.

The questions read like this: "Do you tend to choose rather carefully, or somewhat impulsively?" "Does it bother you more having things incomplete, or completed?" "Are you usually rather quick to agree to a time, or reluctant to agree to a time?"

In jobs such as mine (I'm a project manager for a construction company), impulse, incompleteness, and questionable punctuality are not affordable luxuries. And this way I am more demanding of these traits when I am off the clock. I wasn't always that way.

Has this job changed my personality, or has it only changed the way I process information? And is there a difference?

Like a tv sitcom that inevitably manufactures a Very Special Episode, the absurd sub-prime flap has taken a serious policy turn. To wit:

House Financial Services Committee ... Chair Barney Frank (D., Mass.), wants to hold not only the packagers of mortgages liable [in federal court] but also the purchasers in the secondary market. "Anybody, including the original borrower, can make a claim, and the liability would go up the chain," Mr. Frank told the press. "People say it may discourage certain kinds of lending. But that's precisely what we want to do. We will pass a bill that won't allow companies to loan people more money than they can pay back or loans for more than the value of the house."

This law is not only wrong and stupid, it may also be a separation of power breach. Let the courts decide liability, not Congress. What else are the courts for?

Recall when reading pieces such as this that the word "prime" when used in the term "sub-prime lender" does not refer to an interest rate. "Sub-prime" actually refers to the borrower: a party with a blemished credit score. I'm starting to agree with Alex Tabarrok. Those who bemoan the sub-prime lenders are credit snobs. Especially those for whom the expression is in and of itself meant to be insulting. "You lend to the poor and lower middle class? You Visigoth!"

This legislation might pass. And if it does, money will dry up. Jobs will be lost. Blame will be assigned. Wrongly assigned.

Read Tabarrok's work on the subject here, here and here.

Read our work on it here.

Q: How many INFPs does it take to change a light bulb?
A: I think it only takes one, but the question is how long will the task be put off? After all, do I really *need* that light bulb? Think of all the possibilities in working around the need for that light bulb! And then, when the impossibility of the possibilities is too obvious to pretend not to see, the bulb gets changed.

Q: How many INFPs does it take to change a light bulb?
A: ...come to think of it, I need to change a light bulb ...the one on my front porch, so its a pretty important one ...its been that way for, oh, a while now ...

Q: How many INFPs does it take to change a light bulb?
A: How many INFP's does it take to change a light bulb? Apparently, this whole listfull, to listen to me ramble about my need to change my light bulb and give me encouragment and support to reassure me that eventually I'll "find my inner light bulb" and it will all be OK!

Q: How many INFPs does it take to change a light bulb?
A: The light bulb doesn't need to change! Just because it's different from other light bulbs, doesn't mean that it isn't just as good... besides it may hurt its feelings...

Q: How many INFPs does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Why change it, it might just be exploring its shadow side.

Q: How many INFPs does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Some possible answers:
1. Never get around to changing it at all, because hey, next time you're in a bad mood and walk under it, it will go out again anyway.
2. The light bulb isn't really burnt out; its just you.
3. How many does it take? I'll tell you later when I feel sure I've got the right answer.
4. I couldn't think of a fourth good answer, but figured there should be at least four options

Q: How many INFPs does it take to change a light bulb?
A: What light bulb?

(Source unknown.)

And if you have to ask....

More on the Myers-Briggs voodoo in general here.

Health care thought for the day: The U.S., Canada, France, and Germany on average and in general terms have equal successes in health care. That is, in some indicators, the U.S. surpasses Canada, in others, Canada surpasses the U.S. In some, Canada surpasses France, in others, the reverse is true, and so on. But overall, the citizens of each of those four countries live healthy for about as long, live unhealthy for about as long, and then die at roughly the same age.

The problem? The U.S. spends significantly more than do the other three, but for the same end results. Those who advocate universal health care wisely point to this stark economic fact.

The problem with this problem? Imagine a scenario in which the U.S. health sector does not exist and never did. Imagine the impact on both the price structures and end results in the other three countries: Canada, France, and Germany. For example, imagine Canada's market in cheap drugs without U.S. drugs to import. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty will agree that this hypothetical scenario is much different.

Now, imagine the reverse, the health care system in one of those countries simply vanishes. Canada's current health care system does not exist and never did. What impact on the U.S. health sector, if any, could you imagine?

I finally got around to watching Chasing Life, and I was let down. Not by the report itself, but how little ground it seems we have gained in twenty years of longevity studies. The program can be summed up in a few, very brief suggestions: don't smoke. Eat a plant-based diet. When you do consume animal protein, make it deep water fish. Calorie reduce. If you drink, drink red wine. Exercise. Get enough sleep. Reduce stress. Brush and floss twice a day. The jury is still out on stem cell therapy. The jury is still out on gene therapy. The jury is still out on supplements and selenium. Covert Bailey has literally been making these points since I was in high school. Today I'm 38.

• De La Hoya proves far too strong and aggressive for Mayweather, and wins six of the first eight rounds.
• Mayweather goes down at least once by the end of the fifth round, but promptly gets up. It is the first legitimate knock-down of his career.
• De La Hoya withers after the eighth, giving up three of the last four rounds. But Mayweather cannot mount nearly enough offense to stop him.
• De La Hoya wins 114-112, although the close score does not reflect the lopsided win.
• In post-fight interviews, Mayweather gushes over De La Hoya's strength and defense, but elects for an immediate rematch, at which point the gushing stops and the trash talk begins anew.
• De La Hoya wins the rematch in even more convincing fashion and retires. Mayweather goes back down to 147 and beats up on a tomato can for his next fight. He retires on a win.
• After the first fight, Mayweather has a public and very short-lived reconciliation with his dad, who nearly trained De La Hoya for the bout.

If you have any doubts, we've only got two more weeks before we know.

For something a little different this week, check out some of Youtube's Arabic musicians, both established and amateur. For example...

..."Awel Marrah" posted and performed by "OudProff", an untitled track performed by Rahim Al-Haj, a beautiful and untitled taqsim by Abdo Dagher and Modathir Abul Wafa, with fairly ridiculous art house video accompaniment, a Farid el-Atrache taqsim (whatever that is), by Peter Refela, a clip of Naseer Shamma making it look easy, a clip of Onur Darbuka doing the same, and a groovy video for "Leysh Natarak", by trip-hop maestra Natacha Atlas.

In big label (I should say "somewhat bigger label") news, Priestbird has released their LP In Your Time. Find it and buy it. We posted on Priestbird, with some links and such, here.

And as for my weekly American Idol bit? The news speaks for itself.

If anything positive came out of the Don Imus affair, it is this: the left has finally read the First Amendment.

After the Dixie Chicks flap I was starting to wonder. From the Wikipedia backgrounder:

During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, several weeks after their Grammy success, the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London on March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd's Bush Empire theatre in London. During this concert, the band gave a monologue to introduce their song "Travelin' Soldier," during which Natalie Maines, a Texas native, was quoted by The Guardian as saying, "Just so you know, [...] we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."

The response from the pro-war right was immediate, indignant, and damaging. The band gamely cited the First Amendment (recall this appearance on Real Time With Bill Maher, for example), but this was never a First Amendment issue. The First reads,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The key word here is Congress, and Congress never acted. It never held a single subcommittee hearing, never voted on a policy proposal. No legislator ever considered banning such remarks, whether here or abroad. The Dixie Chicks spoke, and then the people spoke back, that simple.

Yet that did not prevent the left from making statements such as:

"[The Dixie Chicks] were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said.Our democracy has taken a hit."
--Al Gore to a college audience in Murfreesboro, TN.

"For [the Dixie Chicks] to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American."
--Bruce Springsteen, on his web site

"To those familiar with 20th-century European history it [seems] eerily reminiscent of.... But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here."
--Paul Krugman, on a demonstration in Louisiana where the audience at a private rally watched a tractor destroy Dixie Chicks LPs

"The United States thrives because our citizens have the right to express their opinions (dissent or otherwise) without fear of legal retaliation. Unlike in dictatorships where death or imprisonment follows expression. Let freedom ring by our voices and whichever opinion is spoken."

--A representative post on this petition drive here.

I am certain that each of them knows better. Al Gore knows that policy is not about how men and women are made to feel. Bruce Springsteen knows that a boycott is hardly un-American. Paul Krugman knows the difference between state-sponsored and private-sector destruction of art and literature. And the petitioner knows that freedom of speech is a far different thing from freedom from consequences.

But back to Imusgate, where once again a brief remark has caused a storm of protest. Again we must remind ourselves that, while the original remark is constitutionally-protected speech, the storm of protest, too, is constitutionally-protected speech. And who better to remind us of this than...? Reverend Al Sharpton (on Bill Maher):

"There was no federal or government regulators that fired [Don Imus]. What fired him was when advertisers were told by their customers that they're not going to support them if they support this kind of stuff.... You can't tell people that Don Imus has the right to say what he wants, but we don't have the right to respond. Free speech goes both ways.... Are you suggesting then that we be muzzled, and that Mr. Imus say what he wants to say?"

Couldn't have said it better myself. Of either flap. Watch the whole interview here.

The Innocence Project

Lately I've been watching films on the treadmill, which drowns out almost all other sound. My only solution is to watch with subtitles, which produces both expected and unexpected results.

1. Character subtleties (even not-so subtleties) are mostly lost. Imagine watching Darth Vader or HAL without hearing the actor's voice.
2. Musical cues are completely lost. Goes without saying.
3. Cinematography and other visual cues are enhanced. If you're not listening to anything, your other senses are, by necessity, more focused.

But unexpectedly, I pay more attention to dialogue when watching films with subtitles. This helps me follow the plot more dutifully, and get more out of the script. Not out of the film, mind you, but out of the script.

To put this all another way, bad soundtracks and bad acting jobs are eliminated, but so are brilliant soundtracks and brilliant acting jobs. All films are scored somewhere between 2-1/2 and 3 stars. There are no four-star films, and no bombs. Those who can hear enjoy Last of the Mohicans more. The deaf enjoy White Noise more (no irony intended).

And since Hollywood produces more of the latter than the former, I would say that, yes, on average, the deaf enjoy films more than the rest of us.

(Obligatory external link here and here: "The Moral Obligation to be Intelligent," parts one and two, respectively.)

For a nice break from a tough day at work or a tougher day reading about current events, try this smart and funny General Knowledge Test. The inauguration question:

1. HISTORY: Describe the history of the Papacy from its origin to the present day concentrating especially, but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious, and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America, and Africa. Be brief, concise, and specific.

My favorites?

12. PHYSICAL EDUCATION: Run a four-minute mile. You have three minutes.

...and...

21. ASTRONOMY: Define: the Universe. Give three examples.

Read the whole thing here.

My favorite? Number five:

The biggest solar collector on Earth is our ocean mass. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the oceans absorb enough heat from the sun to equal the thermal energy contained in 250 billion barrels of oil each day.

Read the rest here.

A German study confirms what we have all known for 14 years, but were too timid to mention at fancy cocktail parties: listening to Baroque period compositions does not make you smarter. Click here for more.

(Before my wife has friends over again, I wish the same researcher would publish a take-down of Montessori schools.)

I've been looking for this Pink Floyd song for years, and it's been under my nose on Youtube all this time:

Echoes, Part 1A
Echoes, Part 1B
Echoes, Part 2

But forget about all that. For something new, try The Carps' Myspace page. The track All the Thugs I Know makes me want to go overthrow a small regime somewhere.

American Idol. Legs is gone. Hairboy is still here. Get to work, people. (But for an interesting take on why we should actually vote for the worst, check out votefortheworst.com.)

I try not to be a demagogue on any issue, but I'm as close to an open borders zealot as there is. Yet I'm realistic as well, and there's one thread running through this quilt that troubles me:

• As many as 20 million illegal immigrants reside here.
• As many as 90% of them are Mexican.
• Even I can do that math: 18 million Mexicans have left their country for greener pastures here.
• The population of Mexico is 80 107 million, therefore 22.5% 16.8% of their populace (and by definition a much larger percentage of the work force) has left.
• There are entire cities of abandoned wives and children, the primary export and economic output of whom are weekly cash remittances of U.S. dollars from their husbands and fathers. The flood of U.S. dollars will only make U.S. imports more affordable when compared to domestic goods, yet since so much of the workforce has left and productivity/innovation are both down, it will also become increasingly true that these relatively cheaper imports are relatively better-made. So what would you rather buy? Expensive junk? Or inexpensive quality? Mexican merchants will simply have no one to sell to, and nothing to sell in the first place.
  
• To avoid this odd collision of economic factors, more workers will leave, exacerbating the problem, and the downward spiral will continue.

It is no secret that societal collapse follows economic collapse. And the society in question happens to be our neighbor to the south. The spillover effect will be unavoidable. This way, one day between today and D-Day, Mexico will cease to be a net positive to the U.S. and will become a net detriment. On that day, the nature of the debate will necessarily shift. I do not think that day has arrived, nor is it close. But it is coming.

Of course the humanitarian way of looking at this problem is addressing the effect on Mexico and Mexicans, not on the U.S. and Americans. But either way, it is exactly the same problem.

UPDATE: I've just fixed the egregious typo in bullet # 5. Please read again.

SECOND UPDATE: ...And the factual errors in bullet # 3. Yeesh!

From Rotten Tomatoes:

It's altogether likely that there have been more sudden, precipitous falls from grace in cinema than the one Roberto Benigni suffered between "Life is Beautiful" and "Pinocchio," but none spring to mind. In any event, this film undoubtedly marks the first (and last) time an Academy award-winning actor chose to follow the greatest triumph of his career by dressing up in pink pajamas and playing a boy carved from a log. Atrocious dubbing compounded the movie's problems for American audiences, but no matter which country you were unfortunate enough to see it in, "Pinocchio" featured a 50-year-old man in the title role.

[...]

Torturous. Avoid it like the plague.

Read the bitter rest here.

It's easy to say that CBS Radio should fire him. But maybe there is another way.

Don't get me wrong, what Don Imus said was intolerant and stupid. Intolerant because, yes, a world-class college basketball team is made up mostly of black players. Get over it. Intolerant because, no, just because they are black women does not make them whores.

But it was also stupid: he said these things loudly into a microphone for a national audience, not in a whispered hush for his friends over a round of tequila shots, in the safety of an all-white or predominately white bar. Do any of us really believe that only one white man in America bemoans the disproportionate prevalence of blacks in sports?

For 12 years I have intuited that this is where white-on-black racism is most problematic, when blacks are not around. I can pinpoint it so exactly because I started this job 12 years ago, and in my early weeks here I first heard the term, "It's about to rain pitchforks and nigger babies." This was 1995: enlightened, reasoned 1995. It goes without saying that I am white, and that there wasn't a black man around. I felt I had woken up in Mississippi in 1962, that we had lost an entire generation of social progress in a single instant.

But of course this is impossible. A culture doesn't lose over 30 years of enlightenment by telling one single, disgusting joke. It can only mean one thing: the progress was never there to begin with. The racism had moved underground, had buried itself under a polite exterior.

It pains me to say it, but no more burying. The Nazis burned books and probably still do somewhere, while American booksellers stock the most Naziesque of literature available, Mein Kampf, written by the movement's totem, Adolph Hitler. As a writer, and out of simple common sense, I prefer the American way. Indeed, the Amazon.com review says it better than I ever could, "Had the book been taken seriously when it was first published, perhaps the 20th century would have been very different."

And while I'm writing caveats, let me write one more: a rube like Don Imus does not deserve a radio show. But firing him outright is tantamount to burning his book instead of airing it out. CBS radio should broadcast and analyze his ideas out instead of quashing them. A more fitting punishment (for the stupidity, not for the intolerance) would be to keep him on the CBS payroll and let him lose all of his sponsors one at a time, Arthur Andersen style, until the court of public opinion has spoken. The Rutgers University team, African Americans in general, women, and our society at large all deserve nothing less.

UPDATE: Reason Magazine says exactly what I say, only better and funnier, here.

(I can't bring myself to call it a scandal.)

(This is paraphrased, out of respect for intellectual property rights.)

• Defaults will worsen before they improve. Expect the current wave of foreclosures to last at least another year.
• The worrisome portion of the mortgage market is, of course, the subprime adjustable rate mortgage. But this makes up such a small percentage of the total market that the end is certainly not nigh.
• Our current employment level also bodes well for mortage lenders as a whole. Basic intuition tells us that homeowners default more when they are out of work.
• Housing prices will continue to slide, and Kiplinger's overall economic projection has suffered by roughly one-half of one percent.
  

The commercial mortgage market will not suffer similarly. Even so, we can expect a wave of new regulations:

• The FTC may lengthen its reach into mortgage advertising. (My note: this is as benign a regulation as it gets. The more disclosure, the better.)
• Lending standards between states.
• Sharper teeth and more capital for the FHA, which "loses business" to sub-prime lenders.
• Increased scope for consumer protection laws

My take? Private lenders and private borrowers are finding each other and agreeing on terms. When the borrower defaults, both parties lose. Congress now wants to shut the door on these otherwise voluntary arrangements.

When I think of "longevity," I don't think in terms of "living to age 80 and still being able to play golf" .... I think in terms of "living to age 80 and not having to worry about increased risk of cancer, immune collapse, organ failure, heart disease, atherosclerosis, Alzheimer's, or any number of other things that have long resulted in pain and death for people in your age group."
[...]
Though I can certainly appreciate that many sites and books these days are promoting the value of healthy living, I think they're aiming too low.
--Anne Corwin, at her Existence is Wonderful blog, here

Corwin goes on to describe research areas such as this one, aimed at curing mankind of aging, which we now understand to be a form of illness, not some impenetrable bodily function that simply measures the weight of time. Money quote: "The first person to live to 1000 was probably born by 1945."

• Too early. In television time, the plane only crashed some 90 days ago. Yet laws were already alluded to by Episode 10, when Hurley registered each of the survivors, and again by Episode 77, when the group confirmed to Sawyer that they had seized his belongings in his absence.
• A brewing civil war among survivors, à la Lord of the Flies or, I don't know...Iraq? That was my bet up until the famous hatch opening sequence, in the final moments of the first season. It still might happen, although the remainder of season three seems dog-eared for The Others, including the disappearance thereof.
• The group believes itself too small, and is therefore allowing itself to be run by a default meritocratic dictatorship led by the popular kids: Jack, Kate, Sayid, etc.
• The island already suffers under a sort of fascist puppet prince rule, in which the invisible hand of The Others casts a far greater shadow than the viewers/castaways realize. The castaways are already governed, just not self-governed. Mysterious appearances of food and clues, mysterious disappearances of people and clues, to say nothing of the bizarre death of Mr. Eko, these belie the truth, we just don't know which truth yet. The show's Diet Populism and polite anti-corporatism (by way of the Dharma Initiative plot line) confirm this.

Of course the truth is:

• By the simple fact of their inaction, the castaways have formed a government by default, a tiny anarcho-syndicalist regime. We democracy-whiskey-sexy viewers simply don't recognize it, because it seems too far removed from our own idea of governing.

This is still the best show on television. If you're the one viewer nationwide who hasn't watched, watch.

I do not believe in human-caused global warming. I believe in God.
--Rush Limbaugh, in the April 2007 issue of The Limbaugh Letter

He continues:

There is a complexity to creation and to the planet's mechanisms that we cannot understand; that we cannot control; that we cannot destroy; and that we cannot alter in its intricacy and beauty. I believe mankind's power is insignificant compared to the vastness of God and His Creation. And I am offended by the notion that the automobile I drive or the way I air-condition my home or the way I barbecue -- the things we as Americans do to enjoy life, in a country with the most progress and highest standards of living in human experience -- are somehow threats to God's handiwork. I refuse to believe that a loving God creates us with the talents and abilities to solve problems, cure diseases, and invent things, only to have our very nature lead to an apocalypse.

Mother's milk can turn blue, but brilliant sky-blue if it has inordinate concentrations of whey protein. Normally this goes straight from the breast down the baby's throat, so it is a non-event and no one is any wiser for it. But women who pump out their milk might one day see a radioactive-looking fluid that seems fit for a spy novel, not a mammary gland.

Apparently this is all totally harmless.

This article here touches lightly on the subject of blue milk.

Disclaimer: do not take health or parenting advice wholesale from me, or from any blogger who does not provide a last name or list of credentials yadda yadda yadda.

Something was screwy with my "Vaporous" link on a previous thread. (Stately bow to commenter porcelina for pointing that out.)

I don't seem able to fix it, so try this one here. And I love the violin cello violin string work.

Find also several Youtube versions of my favorite moments from Rockstar: INXS ... Josh Logan practices Santeria ... Jordis Unga sings ambiguously of a Heart Shaped Box ... J.D. Fortune makes Vegas, Pretty ... just say "yes Ty Taylor!" but No Woman No Cry ... while Marty Casey, by far the belle of the ball, looks to the Trees, Wishes You Were Here, shrugs, and looks on the Mr. Brightside.

And from Rockstar: Supernova ... Ryan Starr searches the Back of Your Car ... Zayra Alvarez drunk dials 867-5309 ... while Toby Rand places a booty call to Layla ... Magni Creeps out when The Dolphins Cry (hey, dolphins are eerie) ... while Skunkboy, ("we hardly knew you, man!") rips up Creep, All These Things That I've Done, and Living on a Prayer.

And for the weekly American Idol alert: we get it. Haley has killer legs. Vote her off, already. Please. For mercy's sake. Then we can talk about Sanjaya.

"Don't be afraid to take that big step."

And my lottery numbers are 6, 9, 13, 16, 42 and 49.

Imagine a wormhole with a bent U-shape, in which a billiards ball shot into one end would deposit the ball through the other end, in a way that the ball crossed over its original path.

Now imagine that, while navigating the wormhole, the ball traveled such a distance and such a speed that it actually exited the wormhole before it entered it. The field of theoretical physics is largely unanimous that this is possible.

But imagine that, while the ball exiting the wormhole crosses paths with the ball entering the wormhole, it actually collides with itself, knocking itself off course so that it never enters the wormhole at all. This way the balls will eventually come to rest and sit next to each other, which is to say, each of the balls will sit next to itself. The field of theoretical physics is largely unanimous that, at the scale of billiard balls, this is not possible.

Work that one out.

The idea that there are, frankly, idiots in both political parties saying that we should see, you know, greater freedom in the marketplace, where in the world is the comptroller of the currency? Where is the Federal Reserve? Where are the regulators and the self- policing associations to permit this kind of nonsense to go on?
--Source, Lou Dobbs Tonight last night

Repeat after me: private lenders and private borrowers are finding each other and agreeing on terms. When the borrower defaults, both parties lose. To wit: subprime mortgage lender New Century Financial filed for bankruptcy yesterday, as reported on that same broadcast.

You don't like your lending rate? Refinance. You can't find a low- or no-closing cost refinance? You ain't looking.

If anyone reading (assuming anyone is reading) wonders why I referred to Lou Dobbs as a non-journalist, consider the following, minor example from Lou Dobbs Tonight last night:

Working harder for less is a provable fact. Since 1995, productivity is up 33 percent. But real wages have been falling since 2000.

First, we are more productive because of technological advances. Should we be paid more, or even the same amount, for operating better and better machines, the operation of which requires less and less skill?

But second, and this is the point, if you are making the case for more output and less pay, shouldn't you compare both productivity and real wages from the same year? Meaning productivity v. real wages from 2000, or better, productivity v. real wages from 1995?

Brief, but telling.

British neuroscientists are planning to investigate whether playing soccer contributes to the development of motor neurone disease. The move comes after three amateur footballers playing in the same league developed the disease, which normally affects less than one person in every 50,000 each year.
[...]
A possible link between football and MND, which causes paralysis and is ultimately fatal, has been found before. In 2005, Italian researchers reported that professional footballers playing in that country between 1970 and 2001 were more than six times more likely to have developed the condition.

Source.

Last Friday Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul appeared on Real Time With Bill Maher. Reason has the clip.

Paul presented his ideas well, spoke candidly, and refused to dodge questions. And Maher thanked him for it by treating him like a wingnut.

The high points of Paul's interview:

1. Eliminate the CIA. The agency's missteps and adventures worldwide cause anti-American sentiment and actually make us more unsafe.
   
2. The civil war was unnecessary. "Every other major country of the world was able to get rid of slavery without a civil war. So the civil war wasn't fought over slavery, the civil war was fought over unifying and making a strong centralized state."
   
3. Global warming. The jury is still out on the evidence, although we should cut back on automobile emissions and stop oil company subsidies.
   
4. Eliminate the FAA as a government agency. The September 11 hijacking plot is the perfect example. Private airline traffic administration might have allowed guns in airplane cabins, and the profiling necessary to keep potential hijackers off the planes.
   
5. The Walter Reed scandal is "a demonstration of what government run medicine will be like." Paul also briefly floated a sort of government-funded voucher proposal for veteran health.

His ideas are controversial and principled, well-thought and intriguing. They speak for themselves, and most of them are vacant from the current national dialogue. The clip also provides the quote of the day, courtesy the host himself, Bill Maher:

"I've always thought I was a libertarian, but I'm Chairman Mao compared to you."

You know? I've never agreed with him more.