What this world needs is a permanent light bulb. If we can put a man on the moon, can’t we get a light bulb that doesn’t burn out? Dave says a bulb won’t burn out if it remains on; it only pops when you turn it on. Thomas Edison’s first light bulb is still working. Why? Dave says because he invented it before the off/on switch was invented. If Bush really wants to cement his legacy in triumph, he should get the nation’s greatest minds on creating a permanent light bulb.

I don’t know why I was amused by Dave saying “the off/on switch” instead of the more common “on/off switch.” It’s the same thing, but I never heard it said in that order before.

On the roof of the Ed Sullivan Theater we find our favorite stagehand Pat Farmer. What he has for us tonight: 5,000 super balls. Later in the show, Pat will dump the entire collection down onto the 53rd Street. What will Pat try to prove by this? Not a thing.

"WORD NEVER BEFORE SAID BY A U.S. PRESIDENT": From last week's presentation of the Presidential Medals of Freedom, we see the President say, "Matlock."

And that's how we play, "Word Never Before Said by a U.S. President."

Of course, when I typed up the blue card I wanted to be sure. I figured Matlock was popular during the Reagan Administration (or maybe it was Bush's) so I decided to Google "Reagan" and "Matlock" just for fun. I quickly learned that Reagan's Ambassador to the Soviet Union was a guy named John Matlock. I made a copy of the article and highlighted the important points: Matlock; Reagan; Ambassador. I handed it to the Stangels and said, "I hope this isn't a problem." The looked at it with concern then laughed when they saw what it was. In fact, Matlock also worked under Bush 41, so I'm sure "Matlock" isn't a word never before said by a U.S. President. And that was after only one Google check. I didn't even start Googling Fillmore or Taft.

Disney’s Chicken Little is the number one movie in the country and watching the commercial, Dave doesn’t quite understand why.

Announcer: Come see the heart-warming tale about a community of chickens who breathe a sigh of relief when they learn the sky is, in fact, not falling. But the celebration is short-lived when every last chicken is butchered for fear they were infected with bird flu.
‘Chicken Little.’ In theaters now.”

(Guy with bird puppet)
“This Act left the audience:
A) weak with laughter
B) beaming with delight
C) deathly ill with bird flu

Dave tells a quick story. His son Harry made a “noise” the other day. Dave asked, “What was that?” The little one answered, “Harry burp.” Dave smiled, explaining to us that it was just the opposite. Close, but not quite.

This reminded me of a story I told here in 2000. My little 4-year-old Danielle just made a “noise.” She said she “fluffed.” I feigned ignorance, asking “What’s a ‘fluff’?” She thought a moment, and then came up with “It’s a poopy burp.”

(Guy at cotton candy machine)
“Cotton Candy is made with the same method used:
A) In the 1920’s
B) for other confectionary treats
C) to style Donald Trump’s hair

(Snow falling in theater)
“In this festive scene, stagehands sprinkled:
A) fake snow
B) Confetti
C) the contents of an urn labeled “Bob Denver.”

Back to Pat Farmer, Dave asks that he number the bins o’ balls. Ever the servant, Pat begins numbering the many super balls, starting with 1.

KID SCIENTISTS:
1. Kevin Hu; 7th grader, 13 years old. In an attempt to make conversation, Dave asks, “So what do you do for fun? Play soccer? Baseball? Softball?” Kevin says, “The violin and math.” Different worlds, these two. What does Kevin have for us? He will demonstrate Pascal’s Law. Dave knows all about Pascal’s Law: “You need to wait a half-hour after eating to go swimming.” No, Dave, that’s not it.

Dave is given a glove, a rubber mallet, and a corked bottle of green fluid. Dave has a lot of fun with the mallet, pounding it on the demo table and exclaiming, “Is anything funnier than a mallet?” Kevin wants to keep on task but the next Kid Scientist is amused by Dave’s antics. So what will happen in this experiment? By tapping the top of the cork with the mallet, the increased pressure inside the bottle will cause the bottom to bust open. And it does. Dave is left with only the top of the bottle in his gloved hand, the bottom breaking off and the liquid splattering on his feet. And that’s Pascal.

2. Melissa Malloy; 6th grader; 12 years old. Melissa has a pet dog at home; a miniature pincher. Dave says to Paul, “Remember we had a guy like that here at the show? He was about this tall and he went around . . . (making pinching motion.)”

What does Melissa have for us? She will demonstrate exothermic reaction. She gives Dave a candle on a stick. After getting the darn thing lit, Melissa explains that she also has a tube connected to a canister of methane. Dave takes a step back. He is rightly concerned about holding a lit stick with an explosive gas inches away.

While Melissa explains what she is going to do, Dave stands there like the Statue of Liberty. A soapy bubble solution is added to the tube attached to the methane. When a nice cake of bubbles is produced, Melissa tosses it in Dave’s direction, which Dave then touches with his flame stick. In an instant the bubbles quietly explode into a flame-ball and then disappear. Very cool.

3. Tad Schmitt; 7th grader; 12 years old. What’s he like to do? He’s into 3-D computer animation and fencing. Again, different worlds these two.

What does Tad have for us? He will demonstrate air pressure with a vacuum cannon.

(Right around here I learn we are making a big switch to Know Your Current Events for the 2nd show. I barely watch the rest of this show as I busily prepare for the 2nd taping.)

Tad has a blue plastic plate hanging on a string. There was some kind of cannon or gun. I looked up a second after the experiment was completed, the blue plastic dinner plate latched onto the cannon.

And that was the Kid Scientists, brought to you by Chemistry teacher Lee Marek from Naperville, Illinois.

JOHN CUSACK: He’s a Chicago Cub fan who rooted for the Chicago White Sox in October. Is that OK? It is to John, but not to a lot of other people. John was hoping to scoop some tix for the playoffs but the team owner labeled Cusack a front runner, fair weather fan jumping on the festive band wagon. White Sox fans thought he was joining the party too late; Chicago Cub fans thought he was a traitor. John pointed out to the owner that he was in a movie about the Chicago White Sox and went to Comiskey Park long before team owner Reinsdorf bought the Pale Hose. The Chicago media raked him pretty good. Cub fans wanted to fight him. John says it is possible to be both a Cub fan and a White Sox fan. Many disagreed. I must admit, my allegiance flipped a little in 1969 when the Mets won the World Series, but that was magical. It couldn’t be helped. The Amazin’ Mets were truly amazing. Everybody flipped to the Mets that year except Johnny DelRegno. By 1986, my heart wasn’t in the Mets dugout at all. I actually felt bad for the Red Sox losing to them in the World Series. Of course, if I were a TV or movie star in 1986, I would have tried to get tickets to a game at Shea, just for the fact it was a World Series. I would try to go to any World Series game, no matter the participants.

Can you tell I’m just trying to fill space? Like I said, I was trying to get the next show ready during this show. I know we saw a clip from Class, John’s first movie gig. They talked about Jacqueline Bisset in The Deep. And we saw a clip from The Ice Harvest. It opens November 23rd.

ACT 5: Pat Farmer and his pal Tommy O'Brien drop the 5,005 super balls down onto 53rd Street. And we see the bouncing balls come right back to Pat in reverse.

BRAD PAISLEY: From his CD, “Time Well Wasted,” the man with the most nominations in Tuesday night’s Country Music Association Awards, Brad Paisley performed “I’ll Take You Back.”

And that was our show for Monday November 14, 2005. Wahoo EXTRA!

Hmmmmm, I think I got the answer to where Saddam hid his weapons of mass destruction. He disguised it as the bird flu.

It's late and I have nothing today, so I'll just fill you in on my Sunday viewing of football. Sorry, folks.

The football Giants are tied with the Vikings with 10 seconds left in the game on Sunday. The opening kick off was over 3 hours earlier in the day. And now the Vikings are lining up to attempt a field goal to win the game. All the work of these two NFL teams is coming down to this one final field goal attempt. The Vikings kicker missed two earlier attempts for a field goal in the first half. I wondered, and many many many many others were wondering the same thing: what was the Viking's kicker thinking right now. All eyes were on him. This moment, this final moment of the game will decide if the Vikings win the game or if the game goes into overtime. Right here, right now, is the most tense and exciting moment of the 3-and-a-half hour game. The Vikings are lining up to attempt the field goal. The Giants are out of timeouts so they can't call timeout to "freeze" the kicker. Every eye at Giants Stadium is glued to the field for this final kick. And at home, we too are fixed on the game. It's all coming down to this. And then . . . . and then the director decides at THIS MOMENT to show us two replays of the kicker's missed field goal attempts from earlier in the day. With 10 seconds left in the game and the Vikings about to attempt the game-winning field goal, we get to see replays of action that took place over two hours earlier. I was so mad at the director I really didn't care if the Minnesota kicker made the field goal or not. The mood was ruined, the setting garbaged by the inept director. After the two replays, we go back to LIVE action. We see the field goal attempt 4 seconds later. I was livid. Who, why? I stayed to the end of the game to hear announced who was the director but it wasn't mentioned. Oh I was upset! I won't tell you if the Minnesota kicker made the field goal or not. I will tell you that he missed two attempts earlier in the game. I WAS SCREAMING WITH RAGE. Stupid stupid stupid! How can he take us away from the LIVE action at that moment? Ridiculous! The director has no sense of story.

And then I watched a few minutes of the Pittsburgh Steeler/Cleveland Brown game. A Pittsburgh Steeler defender, the guy with the long long hair flying out the back of his helmet, tackles the Browns quarterback. Who these two are is not important. The Steeler guy zeros in on the QB and right before making contact, the Steeler guy drops his head down low and rams the guy. "Ooooh" I say. From my days of organized football, I know you should never drop your head like that. It's way too dangerous. You are exposing the back of your neck to potential injury. You have to keep your head up. It's safer, much safer. Now I believe the Steeler defender is an All-Pro so I was a bit surprised he dropped his head the way he did. And I don't mean he dropped his head like a charging ram to apply the hit . . . I mean he dropped it even lower, like his chin to his chest as if he was looking at his feet. In all my years of watching football, I never saw a defender drop his head to that extent before making a hit. And never before have I said "Oooooh" because of a defender exposing the back of his neck to injury that way.

And then the announcer said something that made me question everything I know about football, made me question everything I hear from announcers, made me question everything I see during a football game. Never before have I noticed a defender drop his head the way this defender did . . . and then the announcer during the replay says, "He made that tackle with perfect form. His kept his head up."

It was the exact opposite of what I saw, the exact opposite of what was shown on the replay. The defender dropped his head to the point I was concerned for his health. I never reacted that way to a hit in football in my 40 years of watching the game. And then the announcer says I didn't see what I just saw. My reaction to what I saw was 180 degrees in the other direction to what the announcer reported I saw. The player dropped his head so far that I took notice. I never notice things like that. I actually said it out loud and I was by myself. And then the announcer tells me what I saw didn't happen.

So maybe it's me. Maybe I don't know anything about football. Maybe I don't know what I'm watching. It made me question my entire viewing experience. It's as if I saw white and I'm told it's black. Sigh. I really think I've had it with football and sports as a whole. It's obvious I don't know what I'm watching. I don't know anything.

Oh, and one more thing about NFL football. I forgot to mention this last week. On November 6th, Kansas City Chiefs football coach Dick Vermeil was praised for his gutsy call in the game against the Oakland Raiders. With 5 seconds left in the game and the Chiefs losing to the Raiders 23-20, KC got down to the one yard line. Most coaches would have gone the safe route and kicked a field goal to tie the game and send it into overtime, but Vermeil decided to win or lose the game right there and went for the touchdown. On the last play of the game, Vermeil and the Chiefs went for the touchdown from one yard out . . . . and scored to win the game. Every NFL commentator lauded the gutsy move, but also offered a glimpse to the other side if the Chiefs did not score. They all said he would have been vilified if the Chiefs did not score. Wow! What a guy! Imagine going for the touchdown instead of the safe field goal at that moment. But let's take a closer look at this call.
Chiefs losing 23-20.
5 seconds left in the game.
Ball at the one yard line.
Kick a field goal and the game goes into overtime.
Go for the touchdown and the team wins or loses right there.

And here's why going for the touchdown was the only smart thing to do.
Kick the field goal and your chance of winning in overtime is 50-50, or close to it no matter if your team wins the coin toss or not. 50% chance to win.
Now, what are the odds you will score a touchdown from 1-yard out on one play? I know going for 2-points from 3 yards out is about 40%, so I would imagine gaining 1 yard in this situation is greater than 50% and would imagine it would approach 70%. The exact success rate from 1-yard out is something an NFL statistician could easily find, but I am quite sure it is greater, by a healthy dose, than 50%.
So what would you want? A 50% chance of winning the game or a 70% chance of winning the game? The answer is obvious, yet I didn't read this anywhere. I only read how wonderful Dick Vermeil was for going for the touchdown, a real gutsy guy.

But then I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't know what I'm watching.