The Ballad of Harald and Jørgen

When I was a kid, I read Superman comics up until the point where I found Marvel to be a much better, if not more realistic, purveyor of superhero tales. Much of the premise of the Superman comic depended on the Man of Steel's ability to uphold his "secret" Clark Kent identity. Even for a seven year old kid, this required more suspension of disbelief than I was willing to put up with. While tons of Marvel characters relied on the same premise, Spiderman at least wore a mask. With Superman, a pair of ordinary reading glasses was all that kept his peers from recognizing that Clark Kent and Superman were one and the same. Take this fact and add that Clark Kent was never seen together with Superman yet claimed to be his close friend, and it's pretty obvious that the journalistic talent and investigative qualities of the staff at whatever newspaper Kent worked at sucked worse than a toothless vampire.

Still, Jimmy Olsen might have claimed that Superman at least put on a pair of spectacles to conceal his true identity. In my book, that puts him one notch over the soft science schnucks currently lamenting how Harald Eia and the TV series "Hjernevask" make them look bad by showing viewers parts of interviews where the "scientists" are "tricked" into giving pretty much the exact same quotes as they have given in earlier interviews. Moreover, they agreed to appear on the show under the premise that it would be science journalism involved, and thus a serious show wherein they would bask in the glory of their doctorates in what asymptotically approaches science from below.

When the program was announced, some of the interviewees already started their public outcry of having been misled - some six months before the show was supposed to air. Not having seen any of the episodes, but having seen the teasers and followed the subsequent debates in other media, this still struck me as odd. From what I've seen in the teasers - which mirrors what I've read in the ensuing debates - an episode goes a li'l something like this:

• Eia inerviews some Norwegian "scientist" and appears to ask some critical question.
• Norwegian "scientist" inevitably provides aa absolute, definitive answer for which he or she has no scientific basis.
• Eia appears sceptical.
• Eia asks some foreign (preferably American) scientists the same question and presents them with the comments from the Norwegian soft-science schnuck.
• Foreign scientist give a different answer, invariably in less bombastic and absolute terms than the Norwegian "scientists"
• Eia nods in approval like a bobblehead doll in a car with bad suspension during an earthquake.
• Repeat ad nauseam with different topic.

There's no doubt that Eia appears to be severely biased in his interviews, so that does warrant a fair deal of criticism. Favoritism aside, here's what I really don't get. Harald Eia is a very talented comedian, and has parlayed this into national celebrity and probably significant wealth. Eia's style of comedy can hardly be characterized as sophisticated, and to my knowledge, he has never displayed any public interest in science journalism until this show. Moreover, I notice from the teasers as well as from the ensuing public debate that Eia does the interviews himself, without any form of disguise. Not even a pair of glasses. This means that one out of two scenarios must have taken place prior to the interviews:

Scenario 1: Soft-science schnuck is contacted by Eia directly.
SSS: Yello?
Eia: Hello - this is Harald Eia calling. You might remember me as a TV-comedian famous for showing his private parts on television, for making fun of people from other parts of Norway than himself, and for having skits wherein dogs lick various food items off of Kristoffer Schau's balls. I'm currently working on a science journalism project where I endeavour to elucidate different aspects of human behavior based on nature versus nurture. Would you be interested in appearing on such a program to talk about things pertaining to your research?
SSS: So I'll be on TV, right?
Eia: You most certainly will.
SSS: Sign me up.

Scenario 2: Soft-science schnuck is contacted by some staffer assigned to Eia:
SSS: Yello?
Staffer: Hello there. My name is of no consequence and I am calling because NrK is planning a TV series based on the premise of elucidating different aspects of human behavior and determining whether certain traits can be more strongly linked to nature or to nurture. Being that you have been a vocal proponent for nurture over nature, that you have published several articles on the subject and that you own a sports jacket, we'd like to interview you for the program.
SSS: Who's gonna be doing the interview?
Staffer: Harald Eia.
SSS: The TV comedian famous for showing his private parts on television, for making fun of people with a different dialect than himself and for having skits wherein dogs lick various food items off of Kristoffer Schau's balls?
Staffer: That'd be the one.
SSS: Would I have to lick anything off of Schau's balls to be on TV? I'm allergic to nuts..
Staffer: You'll only be required to give an interview where you repeat the exact same inane statements you have gone on record giving earlier.
SSS: Sign me up.

So assuming the soft-science schnucks weren't contacted under the premise of making a science journalism spoof, where's the deception? At the end of the day, unless the interviews were edited to the level where words from different parts of the interview were combined to form quotes the interviewee never intended to give, they need to STFU. If they really thought that a program designed and executed by Harald Eia would be an unbiased piece of BBC-like science journalism, I've got a piece of land with a tower on it in central Paris to sell them real cheap.

Of all the soft-science schnucks getting their undies in a bunch over the resluting TV show, none have appeared more indignant than one Jørgen Lorentzen. Lorentzen appeared in a televised debate Thursday the 18th of March and claimed that the interview contained lots of footage of him putting over biology and biologists left and right, only that dastardly Eia cut those parts out, leaving him looking like a government-sponsored moron. He luv'd him sum biologists, but he also knew for a fact that the foreign expert Eia had used to counter his eloquent arguments in favor of nurture had done some critical error in his experiment design, thus invalidating the studies and any conclusions derived from it. Eia had actually done his homework and upon asking Lorentzen to state the flaws in the study, was able to counter and negate the two or three points made by Lorentzen. Following this, Lorentzen sulked and argued "well; there were several other critical flaws" before the host mercifully ended Lorentzen's self-burial. Moreover, the statements Lorentzen deemed to have been taken out of context, i.e., not being shown following Lorentzen putting over biology, were shown to have been given in earlier interviews with Lorentzen, where he apparently had no problems with Dagens Næringsliv printing such quotes. Or maybe the problem was that DN never put his quotes next to counterarguments by other experts, and so he only appeared to be caught in a cul-de-sac of his own self-righteousness. On Hjernevask, however, he appeared arrogant AND clueless. Not to mention that he got owned in a debate in a subject where he clearly considers himself an expert...by Harald Eia.

While I'm not saying that all the Norwegian soft-science schnucks interviewed by Eia only to have all kinds of issues later are idiots, there's no question that the quotes from the foreign scientists come across as more level-headed. This was especially clear for the Norwegian "expert" and waste of human flesh that on a direct question from Eia answered that each individual was free to choose his or her sexuality.

Tell that to a teenager from a strict religious background in rural Norway who would have to break any ties to family and friends and endure bullying and ridicule from peers if he or she chooses to come out of the closet.

Academic Friday Nonsense from PhDComics.com

..Because Anders is a hyooge "Peanuts" mark for reasons unknown...

Any NMR people in the hizzouse?

PhDcomics hit the nail on the head yet again. I've seen my fair share of these. For schtuff that has to be handed down pretty much before the experiments have been completed and any sound conclusions can be drawn *cough*conference papers*cough*, I might even have perpetrated some of this..

When I was a grad student back in good ol' NC, my advisor was infamous for assigning tasks which "would only take 15 minutes - tops". One such 15 min task handed to me took me a good couple of months to complete, and I was not the record holder. By far. This particular "advisor trait" was something I didn't hand down to my own grad students, but recent events - and to my defense: instrument breakdowns - may prove otherwise. Dammit!

How true is this............do ya recognize the TV shows in question? I love how on CSI - be it the original, CSI Miami, CSI New York, CSI Rome Wisconsin, CSI Lincoln Nebraska or the upcoming CSI Trenton New Jersey - some head schnuck can wipe a Q-tip across the floor of a crime scene, hand it to a former street thug/fashion icon/supermodel/gambler/Navy SEAL/astronaut. Said glorified gofer will promptly don a lab coat over his or her Vera Wang ensemble, and science ensues. The Q-tip is dipped into a plethora of test tubes, each yielding a different color. The test tubes are subsequently spun down in a centrifuge and placed in some form of advanced instrumentation which invariably ends up being defined as a GC-MS. Ten seconds thereafter, they show the results which in addition to the info you would expect from the instrument in question also gives you a recent picture of the suspect, his address, favorite colour and high school yearbook entry. Best of all; the same CSI guy who swabbed the crime scene gets to arrest, prosecute and sentence the guy (invariably) they determine to be guilty. Exactly like real life, eh?

Making Hasselhoff look like Ed Norton

...is a hard thing to pull off, but the dumpster-divers who resuscitated Knight Rider and brought the show "into the 21st century" managed somehow. I watched the first ten or so minutes of the pilot, and I just couldn't take it anymore. Funny thing is; I wasn't such a big fan of Knight Rider back in the day, and seeing as how I caught the odd re-run back in Raleigh a couple of years back, I'm fully aware of the quality of the original series. In no way, however, did it suck half as much as the reincarnated version.

Ad spots: How low can you go?

I gotta stop drinking Coca-Cola Zero and Coca-Cola Light (not that I drink a lot of soft drinks, but still) - there's no way I can sink money into a company that green-lights the kind of commercials and ad spots you see for Coca-Cola Zero (targeted towards a male demographic) and Light (targeted towards a female demographic). Especially the Zero commercials are the worst cases of lowest common denominator, insulting to both genders, crap commercials I've ever seen on network television in Norway. It might even be pushing the infernal "Axe" ad spots down from the top position.

In case you haven't seen it, it deals with a "morning after a one-night stand" scenario at the girl's place, where the parents come knockin' on the door right after the girl hits the shower. The situation appears dire for the boy, but then he takes a sip of a Coca-Cola Zero he finds in the fridge, and immediately, a SWAT-team breaks in through the window and airlifts the "hero" out with a helicopter. Just before the boy lifts off from the window sill, the girl emerges from the shower, and as he gestures that he'll call her, she enthusiastically approves. As the boy is lifted away from the window, the apartment blows up from an explosion.

Way to deal with a grown-up situation. On a side note, it's somewhat odd that the girl has a Zero in her fridge, seeing as how the entire premise is based on Zero being a boys-only soft drink. Why would she have it in her fridge? There are three scenarios which resonate with the overall premise: 1) the girl is cheating on her boyfriend (as was suggested by my wife), 2) there was an exchange of money for services provided, or 3) that this describes something right out of Aerosmith's "Dude Looks Like A Lady" and thus more "bromantic" than the commercial lets on at first.

Coca-Cola Light is for girls and Coca-Cola Zero is for boys......when was it decided that the consumers were so lazy-ass, howl-at-the-moon stupid that this was a reasonable market segmentation? Especially considering that the hook in the Zero commercials entail adult situations and thus targets demographics above the age of consent?


...and speaking of dumb-ass ads; in Dagbladet's "Magasinet" on Saturday, the inside cover featured a two-page ad from Norsk Sykepleierforbund (The Norwegian Nurses Organization), where they point to the unfortunate fact that women make 85 cent on the dollar compared to men. The punchline in the ad: "Eller må vi bli menn for å få rettferdig lønn" (Or do we have to become men in order to earn the wages we derserve?") You can see the ad and read more about it here. So on one hand the nurses point to the bogus fact that professions traditionally held by women are not as well paid as men with a comparable education (in years), but on the other hand they more than suggest that if they switched genders yet remained within the same profession, they'd make more. Congratulations on confusing the issues and looking downright moronic when there are legitimate grievances which should be resolved.

The Spellemannpris inequality

...or Spellemannprisen, as the proper name for the Norwegian Music Award is, I guess. Watched some of the award show on Saturday, and it was more than a little bit awkward. First of all, if you check out the nominees and winners in the link above, you'll no doubt notice that there is a multitude of categories - 27 in fact - and on average four nominees per category. You'll also notice that several names appear as winners and/or nominees in several categories.

Did I mention that Spellemannprisen is an annual award?

Considering the size and depth of the pool of recording Norwegian artists, it appears that the Spellemannpris committee/jury uses the following inequality when determining the number of categories (three new ones this year):

N(categories) year X > [N(released records) year X / 4]

It's fairly obvious from the lack of correlation between getting Spellemannprisen and any kind of international success that the event should be held less frequently, like every five years or so. That way, the prize would perhaps have some meaning and credibility, rather than the "Everybody's a winner.....only not" mom-and-pop, soda shoppe feel it's presently got. It's ok for the Grammys to have a gazillion categories, because the number of released records vastly exceeds the sum of categories and nominees. In Norway, not so much.

Case in point; checketh out the winner for "Best Video" - Madcon's "Liar":

This is even among the best videos produced for Norwegian artists in 2008? We've got: 1) A high school setting. 2) Cheerleaders doing tired-ass routines in skimpy outfits. 3) Presumably the same skanks - pardon me; "glamour models" - playing volleyball and later being in their underwear or less in the girl's locker room and showers, where they are joined by Madcon, and towel-pulling pranks etc. ensue. Natch, the skanks are stereotypical music video fare, meaning that they're unemployed after the age of 25, and when they eventually kick the bucket, they have to be recycled in three different bins. The only factors missing from this being a rap-video-by-the-numbers was the absence of a jumping lowrider, Cristal and a black leather couch.

THIS is groundbreaking for Norwegian music videos in 2008/09? Mötley Crüe, Poison, W.A.S.P etc. really were ahead of their time, then.

NTNU and Tour de france some more

In an earlier post, I was complaining about how NTNU decided to use money for sponsoring the premier event of a sport more ridden with drug controversy than pro bodybuilding. Turns out many of the academic staff members and students at NTNU also criticized this sponsoring, much for the same reasons. Marketing experts also threw their hat in with NTNU faculty and called this sponsoring "throwing money out the window". This idea was deemed a bad one by faculty, students and a marketing expert.

In a not-so-surprising turn of events, NTNU Press Secretary Christian Fossen disagrees with the criticism, and labels the ad campaign an unbridled success, where NTNU got it's money's worth. Moreover, he claims to have data to back him up. I found that to be interesting, and was prepared to eat some crow and admit I was wrong as I clicked on the link to read the piece.

Turns out I was right after all, but that it's possible to put a positive spin on the situation. You see; whomever was in charge of deciding to sponsor TDf and subsequently launched the project was clever enough never to publicly advertise the desired measurables of the project. Thus, a statistically significant change in any ol' variable can be claimed as a success after the fact, because you never advertised what you were after in the first place. Simply wait for a change in the dataset and claim that's what you planned all along.

Which deliverables can be reported after the ad campaign? Something Fossen refers to as "uhjulpet kjennskap" (unassisted familiarity). I had no idea what this concept encompasses, but luckily the piece offers a definition by example: One of the questions asked by pollsters is whether the interviewee can name any Norwegian universities. If the person lists NTNU among the universities, this is checked off as "unassisted familiarity" - in other words the interviewee was familiar with the name at the time of the polling. Prior to NTNU sponsoring TDf, NTNU had an "unassisted familiarity" of 39%. In other words; only 39% of the people being interviewed could name NTNU as a Norwegian university. Pretty dysmal. Fossen offers the explanation that many of the interviewees had answered NTH, AVH or the University of Trondheim, two of which are the old names for the institutions which were merged to form NTNU. After TDf, the "unassisted familiarity" had increased to 59%. According to Fossen, this qualifies as an unbridled success, and money well spent.

The trick is lowering the bar, it appears. I can see now that in my boundless naïveté, I thought that for sponsoring to result in a success for the sponsor, said campaign would have to result in primarily increased revenue (spend money to make money), or by improving the image of the sponsor so as to increase the revenue potential. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the vast majority of the financing for a university comes from a) funding which follows each student, b) the Research Council (be it directly from NFR or via EU projects), c) collaborations with industry, and d) special financing directly from the government to launch research or teaching in targeted areas, like CO2 capture. As such, any venture intended to increase revenue should either cajole more students to join NTNU, or somehow infuse more capital from funding agencies and industry.

I fail to understand how increasing the "unassisted familiarity" from 39% to 59% helps NTNU in any significant way, shape or form. As far as I know, NTNU does not have an image problem - much less one that can be remedied by sponsoring TDf. The fact that more people in general are cognizant of NTNU being a Norwegian university than before doesn't do much for me. After all, we don't have that many universities in Norway, and I'm hardly impressed that less than 60% can name the second largest one. Just having more people know that you exist isn't exactly a guarantee that this mere fact can be translated into a revenue-generating machine. Nor does it guarantee that this inspires people to know more about said enterprise. A lot more people know that there's a large company named Haliburton now than before 2000/2001, but that doesn't mean that the majority knows what Haliburton does specifically, and it really doesn't mean that more people are interesting in sponsoring Haliburton or working for them.

Exactly how the mere fact that more people know that NTNU is a Norwegian university can aid in getting more students is also kind of a mystery to me. Last time I checked, and as I wrote in my previous post on the topic, high-school students get all kinds of information about what opportunities exist for higher education their senior year (and earlier), and they've probably been offered a tour of NTNU and other universities. If NTNU sponsoring TDf is what makes students choose that particular university, I'm inclined to think that such a particular batch of students would leave NTNU holding the bag. As for the odds of this advertising should increase funding from government and industry, that's just insulting to both NFR and industry. Is Fossen suggesting that someone high up in StatoilHydro was sitting around at their research center (located in Trondheim, btw) thinking "Damn; if only I knew of a university located not too far from here where we could procure some R&D services and sponsor future employees. Let's turn on the boob tube and see what's on - I've been wanting to check out this Tour de baguette thing or whatever the hell it's called. Hey wait; something called NTNU is sponsoring this event, and they're saying it's a university. Quick; to the StatoilHydromobile! Must.......Throw....Big Bags...of Money...at them....NOW!"

Naaah...I don't think so. Way to set the bar low. Essentially they paid a lot of money for people who are unlikely to attend or sponsor them, in return for a larger percentile of faceless strangers knowing that they existed in the first place. Self-ownage.

I discussed this briefly with a colleague earlier today, and he wasn't sure what signal NTNU was sending to it's employees by sponsoring TDf. He narrowed the possibilities down to either (i) encouraging more people to use their bicycles to commute (which is a good thing), or (ii) to encourage use of performance-enhancing chemicals and other drugs among the employees (not so good).

American Gladiator rejects

It's not for everyone, that much is clear:





These people are way more entertaining than the actual show...by far...I'd watch Snake for sure.

Dave Mustaine on VH1 Rock'N'Roll Jeopardy

..Dave owns...check it out. Dave would've owned all of y'all on Elton John lyrics, that's for sure

Dr. Phil on relic'ed guitars

Well, since relic’ing has been up on this blog before, and since Wilhelm being a big fan of guitars and Dr. Phil (a “dialogue-driven talk show with an academic edge” as he calls it), I thought I should post Dr. Phil’s view on relic’ing of guitars:




(dang, what happened to that sycophantic Yes-man I once was?)

Speaking of WB cartoons...

Checketh out this Tom&Jerry episode - "Solid Serenade". The best cartoon song ever, says I.

Penn&Teller

..caught fifteen or so minutes of Penn&Teller's show last week, regarding diets and organically grown food.

I was heavily reminded of why I think magicians are losers who rely on two mirrors and three semi-nekkid girls in addition to their supposed skills.

At first when I saw the show, I thought "Hey; since when did Michael Moore get a suit, some more updated glasses than those "Bad guy from Clint Eastwood movie ca. 1974" ones, lose the cap in favor of a slick black ponytail, trim that scraggy beard and add what's probably termed a "mute vertically challenged person" to his crappy concept?".

...but then I noticed that P&T's show deviate from that of MM not by quality, but by the more frequent inclusion of cusswords and the charming catchphrase STFU.

That's PC thuggin' at its' best right there.

Wazzupwiddat?

There's something I've been wondering about for a while: It seems like one is never more than three links away from some web page run by "sceptics" - people who make it their life's mission to crap all over alternative medicine, extraterrestrial life, conspiracies, psychics and other aspects perceived by the "sceptics" to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Now; I'm not going to contest their findings. Nor am I going to speculate about the fact that surprisingly few of the sceptics I've seen are even remotely connected to hard science. Sure; some very prominent members of these societies are scientists from branches that used to belong to the seven liberal arts, but this point ain't about that. The fact that this for some might conjure up images of Ozzy Osbourne referring to Michael Jackson as a weirdo, ain't what this post is about either.

Rather, I'd like to point out that the sceptics are asleep at the wheel - I've never seen them go after the cosmetic industry - a branch which continuously pushes out commercials packed with more lies in the 15 or so seconds they're on air than was uttered during the entire OJ trial. How come they don't go after any company claiming to have made a cream which eliminates wrinkles, makes your lips fuller AND increases eyelash volume by 275%?

....'cause commercials work, and when the paid model endorsing an anti-aging whatever is 17 years old, removing wrinkles ain't that impressive. Neither is it impressive when the model is someone like Andie McDowell, someone who's had so much cosmetic surgery that should she - higher powers/God/Reptilians from Planet Niburu forbid - get hit by a bus tomorrow, her body would have to be recycled in three separate bins. When the models used by the company aren't even biodegradable, one sort of loses faith in the product, whether or not she states "parce-que je le vaux bien" or whatever.

Why do these people go unscathed by the onslaught of online "sceptics"?

The Eurovison trophee is for us this year

Even better than last year (a wonderful song by Les Fatals Picards), the song selected to represent France at the Eurovision this year is just amazing.
If we don't finish first with that ....

Sébastien Tellier - Divine [Le Clip] [Eurovision 2008]
envoyé par Get-Me-Bodied

To Catch A Predator

MSNBC Dateline\To Catch A Predator is totally must-see TV. Essentially, losers who chat with and proposition underage kids online are intercepted by undercover cops and a TV crew. Some of these losers travel for 6 hours in hopes of having sex with a 13 year old girl, only to be confronted by a reporter with a transcript of their chat and then with the five-o.

To me, this is the best example of journalism, law enforcement and entertainment actually existing in the same space.

Epic ownings:





Bwahhahahahaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:

Yet another annoying and sexist commercial

But this time, it's the totally annoying, male chauvinist Coca Cola Zero commercials that I keep getting spammed with. The latest - aptly titled "The Breakup" involves a couple in a roadside diner, where the dude is trying to work up the courage to break up. After a sip of Coca Cola Zero - the components of which apparently alters his genetic make-up somehow, another thought I find more than slightly disturbing - everything changes. First, the light turns an especially gaudy shade of red, stripper poles appear along with their stripper accessories (or vice versa), and the girlfriend all of a sudden states that she doesn't feel it's right for him to be with only one girl, but that he should feel free to call her whenever he wants to do something fun.

So who wrote this commercial? Some degenerate cab driver?

Thanks a lot for including me in this particular stereotype. Like I don't have enough stereotypical images to battle without being weighed down with this...

WWE style presidency

You can say what you want about the President of france, but the dude knows how to make headlines. With his latest PR fiasco (cussin' out a farmer at a fair), he has even sparked some debate regarding exactly what he said (or rather; exactly how to translate what he said). I found this piece in The Guardian to be especially helpful in that regard - video included.

Right about now, President Bush must be thinkin' "Dagnabit - just my luck; why didn't this sumbitch' come along seven years ago?" How many other presidents do y'all know of where the news coverage is not about which promises he or she broke or anything related to policy at all, but regarding what over-the-hill, pass-along, hand-me-down bimbo of the rich and famous he is currently dating/marrying/amusing with all three inches of french fury that is Li'l Nicky, or regarding exactly what swearwords he used to cuss' out one of his citizens in public?

Or is it the other way around - that a few years after President Bush high-tailed it into office, some french rube somewhere in a french village watched President Bush wave at Stevie Wonder (which he did, sadly) on the village television set and thought to himself: "Putain; even I can be ze Presidente. Parce que je le vaux bien"?

Bohemian Rhapsody in American Idol

It's not a secret anymore, Queen is my favorite group ever.
Enjoy that !!!!

Mickael Johns rocks !!!!!!!!!!!!!

TV show concept

As a general rule, I enjoy the concept of TV shows dedicated to political debates, in that if it's well-conducted, you get clarification on political parties' and individual politicians' views on various issues. However, these shows are damn near impossible to watch due to a multitude of factors, including but not limited to:

• Topics being poorly defined in that they're either too broad, or pigeon-holed into a foregone conclusion
• Host inserting his or her own political bias
• So-called "experts" having no demonstrable knowledge about anything except how to get repeatedly invited to this type of shows
• Politicians hogging air-time with soundbyte-adapted drivel
• Politicians failing to answer direct questions
• Politicians lying their asses off
• Politicians going totally off on a self-aggrandizing tangent

I think the latter four points, the ones concerning politicians, can be addressed in a separate TV show, providing both entertainment as well as providing an analytical tool for the trustworthiness of politicians and parties. And if such a measure can be put in place, it would also mean that politicians would have to be less pontificating and more truthful, thus also possibly reducing the overall contempt reserved for politicians, which can only be a good thing.

How can this be accomplished? By having a separate panel reviewing their performances during debates and checking the facts against their statements. The main reason the politicians get away with blatantly lying during debates, is that the live format and time constraints do not allow for fact-checking. Because when you think about it, a lot of their lies are totally traceable, like what you'll hear about five million times per debate:

• Pontificating Prick #1: Our party came up with this concept and proposed it in congress already back in 1746, and now the rest of y'all jump on the band wagon.
• Pontificating Prick "2: No, no no - it was OUR party which launched this proposal in congress as early as in 1392.

In this case, the douchebags are talking about propositions which are public record and can thus easily be checked out, but obviously not during the broadcast. Equally obvious, since the two combattants are launching opposing arguments around a recorded fact, one of them is a lying, steaming pile of horse $hit. Well; they probably both are, but one can be caught red-handed in being one. Then consider this next case of blatantly lying about easily checked facts:

• Weasel #1: I voted "Yes" on Proposition XYZ back in '92, and I have thus always been FOR whichever subject is associated with this.

Simple to find out, since this is a matter of public record, but again, they're using the constraints of the debates. Same with the next example, which was uttered by the prime minister yesterday:

• The reform proposed and introduced by my party way back in the 90's was severely criticized because experts deemed it too academically demanding for the students.

Really? Simple to find out. Etc, etc.

All you need is a crew willing to check out these facts, and then match a trustworthy-ranking to each politician, or to each party. Obviously, the ranking would have to be normalized with respect to the number of debate appearances for each politician. Then air the show like once a month - more frequently before elections, and let people know which politicians and parties have the most credibility. Obviously, damn near any system which keeps politicians from flat out lying is good.

Picket Fences

Anybody remember this totally awesome TV series? It first aired in Norway in 1994, if memory serves me correct. To borrow liberally from the plot summary at imdb.com, "The town of Rome is a short distance from Green Bay, Wisconsin - close enough to hear the games on Sunday afternoons, but not close enough to keep normalcy from infiltrating the town. A lot of the usual happens in Rome, but in unusual ways. Home invasions are nothing new, but in Rome, the perpetrator leaves behind dirty bathwater, women's underwear and a rubber duck. Potatoes and household appliances become instruments of violence and death, the mayor is a bank robber sentenced to serve her term in office, the coroner likes his work a little too much and cows incubate human embryos. In the middle of all this weirdness is Sheriff Jimmy Brock ('Tom Skerritt'), wife Jill ('Kathy Baker') their children and a frequently bewildered and endearingly eccentric supporting cast that somehow manages to cope with the bizarre series of events that is day-to-day life in Rome." That pretty much sums it up, methinks.

In addition to the two characters mentioned - the country boi sheriff and his know-it-all, God complex MD wife - you've got Holly Marie Combs (from Charmed) as Kimberly the teenage daughter, prone to every strong opinion and/or orientation possible as dictated by the episode, as well as two little boys, who between them fulfill every stereotype possible for their gender and age bracket (again as dictated by the theme of each episode). Other memorable characters include Fyvush Finkel as stereotypical Jewish lawyer Douglas Wambaugh, Lauren Holly (from Ford Fairlane) as the overachieving cop Maxine "Max" Stewart, Costas Mandylor (mostly TV and straight-to-video flicks) as gun-totin' ex-Chicago hard-ass cop-cum-small-town hick deputy, and Ray Walston as the gruff Judge Henry Bone.

Been watching episodes since my wife got me the first season on DVD for my birthday. Too bad the show got canceled after a measly four seasons. Bring back Picket Fences, says I. Remembah this show, Anders?

The Simpsons Movie

Happy Holidays, y'all!

Got The Simpsons Movie (2007) for Christmas by my wife, and seeing as how I missed it in the theaters, I was really anticipating this one. It's been a long time comin', as the cliché goes.

Since I'm a sucker for all things Simpsons, I'm not really capable of giving an objective review of the movie, but if you like The Simpsons on TV, you'll like the movie. Simple as that. Sure - I'd have loved to see more of personal favorite characters (mostly done by Hank Azaria) such as Comic Book Guy, The Bumblebee Man, Professor Frink, Gil The Incompetent Salesman and of course Snake. Having Sideshow Bob in the movie would also have been kewl, Kelsey Grammer's schedule permitting. But that's just nitpicking. One good thing about waiting for the DVD is the bonus material. By that, I don't mean the "exclusive commentary from the gaffer" or "exclusive interview with that dude who brought Matt Groening a bagle back in 1995" - I'm talking about bona fide material, such as "Simpsons as American Idol judges". Real kewl stuff, I tells ya'!

Just watch it already....