God save us from more whining from doctors and nutritionists. I'm sure we'd all be more "healthy" in some sense from just eating raw carrots and drinking organic yak milk or whatever (don't bother to reply, Mr. Dairy is Evil), but there are moments in life when a little happiness, a little camaraderie, a little self-respect is more important. Mental and emotional health are just as, if not more, important than nutritional habits. What the article indicated was that these youths, mostly teens, were buying one item--all they could afford--in Starbucks and then spending a long time there, socializing or doing homework or whatever. That's not binge drinking or binge eating, in fact, they were probably avoiding less healthy and more fatty foods in other situations. Plus, they were enjoying themselves. Teens live stress-filled lives, whether they are high-achieving ones worried that the top colleges won't be able to take them no matter how hard they work, or lower-achieving ones worried about where they will fit into this society. A few moments of peace in a safe environment where they are treated with respect has its value. And at certain moments, that value is greater than making sure every calorie they consume is accompanied by nutrition.

Parents, in my experience, don't "trust" the MPAA ratings system; certainly, as a parent I never hesitated to take my son to see a PG-13 film before he was 13 or to take him to an R before he was 18. Some parents may follow it, but many will simply read the reviews and the information available in newspapers and elsewhere and make an informed judgment.

What's really happening is that there is a self-contained follow-the-leader syndrome going on among studios, multiplexes and media outlets, each of which is dominated by huge corporations. If Disney/Fox/NBC Universal/Viacom CBS won't touch a property, that's a lot of the potential lost for both distributing and promoting a film. Just a few companies control the vast majority of movie screens as well. Add in a few other newspaper companies (Gannett, NYT, Tribune) and you've covered the easiest means of distributing information to the mainstream public in the country. What independent filmmaker, faced with the need to recoup the cost of a film, is going to buck the trend if none of those companies will spit in the face of the MPAA?

It used to be worse, of course. For God's sake, "Some Like It Hot" was released without a seal of approval from the old Hays Office (by then, it was the Shurlock office). But it cost a lot less to make a film in those days; someone investing $100 million is less likely to thumb his nose in the face of this conspiracy of silence. And what media outlet is covering itself well enough to ask whether a ban on advertising from unrated or NC-17 films is making any sense?

Eventually, it will probably take some form of online distribution, whether by replacing traditional media as the advertising medium of choice for avant garde films (but see the conventional wisdom involving "Snakes on a Plane"), or by allowing distribution of the content directly from the internet (which of course takes away the different experience of watching in a large group in a dark room with a projected wide screen), that will break the monopoly. Until then, we're all hostages to this, parents and children and non-parents alike.

Because if they're looking for brother on brother quarterbacking hype, their next best chance is all the way in Week 3, when the Seahawks, quarterbacked by Matt Hasselbeck, play the Giants. If Eli were injured, the Giants quarterback would be his brother Tim. Apply for your media credentials now, so as to avoid the rush.

So the Democrats are aiding Bin Laden how? By emphasizing port security? By seeking to put homeland security funds into the hands of the places where there are real threats? By actually wanting to hunt down Bin Laden instead of putting all our troops into Iraq? I'm waiting for your explanation, John.

and "Lee Aspin", which was Jeopardy's mistaken crediting of a wrong answer to my opponent, but we won't get into that.

Heck, my wife and I got a wonderful week in Aruba, and if I'd won I'd have qualified for the lunch they serve after three games, which wasn't Kosher for Passover so I couldn't have eaten it.

Trivia is a cultural phenomenon that, apart from Jeopardy and its shorter-running progeny on cable, usually exists well outside the notice of popular culture. Indeed, you'll find, say, an athlete or artist who has become a trivia question (say, Floyd Rayford or Pete Best; I'll explain Rayford at the bottom), either shying away from the celebrity that induces or embracing it in a Danny Bonaduce way. Yet, the culture does exist; I've been part of it for over a decade, hosting a weekly trivia game on AOL since 1995. Some people play for the trivia, some for the camaraderie and sense of community that comes from a shared interest in knowledge, some for a chance to kick butt without eating bugs or exerting themselves physically.

Floyd Rayford was the Orioles third baseman on May 30, 1982, when Cal Ripken, Jr. was moved to shortstop and started his consecutive games streak.