Do bald people get dandruff? And if so, how do they treat it? Dandruff shampoo?

Cannibalistic cultures would often eat the flesh of their adversaries as a way to gain their talents and abilities. So, you might say cannibalism is a lot like the movie Highlander, only chewier.

You know those little yard signs people place at intersections to advertise such assorted wonderments as jobs, medical experiments, and home repair? Well, I recently saw one that advertised... wait for it... advertising signs! That's right, like a classified ad extolling the virtues of the classifieds, or the many ads for the yellow pages scattered throughout the yellow pages. I thought about it for a moment, then realized that it was unmitigated genius. Who else would believe those little signs sell something but the people who are sold on signs because of the signs themselves?

Are the days of the elaborate and eloquent television theme song over? I wondered this recently as I encountered a website with many TV themes, past and present.

Consider the Perfect Strangers theme from a decade or so ago: It's one minute and fifteen seconds of such lofty go-get-'em inspirational sentiments as "this flame in my heart, like a long-lost friend, gives every dark street a light at the end" and the chorus opener "standing tall on the wings of my dreams." It includes melody, harmony... even a back-up choir!

Compare that to Scrubs: seventeen words in thirteen seconds. It's most profound statement: "I'm no Superman."

What's this world coming to?

If cough drops are made from eucalyptus, does that mean koala bears never suffer coughing fits?

It's one thing to be driving down the interstate and see a speed limit sign about ten or twenty miles-per-hour below what everyone is actually driving. It's another thing when that speed limit sign says "Strictly Enforced" on it. I mean, really. Who do they think they're kidding?

After all these years, I had my first 400+ point game of Scrabble. Four hundred four points, to be exact, thanks in big part to seven-letter words FRESHEN and DIETERS.

I've recently discovered that I can list the Presidents in order, from George Washington to George W. Bush, complete with the years and circumstances of their coming to office. But Chester Alan Arthur always trips me up, bizarre facial hair notwithstanding.

I wonder if there will be a Hurricane Iota this year. Because Iota would be an ironic name for a hurricane, don't you think?

I wonder how they keep from getting lost when they're flying places. I tried using Google Maps on satellite view, and all those rural areas look the same to me.

The following opinion piece appeared as a guest column in the October 20, 2005 edition of the University of Alabama's Crimson White newspaper:

Is it the best of constitutions, or the worst of constitutions?

Here's the scenario: A nation has emerged from a controversial war against a "tyrannical" ruler, its newfound sense of sovereignty tempered by domestic unease. Its economy, for one, is floundering despite what should be valuable exports. In the midst of all this, the nation is now attempting to formulate a written constitution for itself. The process is difficult, with geographic and cultural factions struggling to find agreeable terms. With compromises made and the constitution drafted, the hard part is only beginning. The vote for ratification promises to be close in some regions, given the intense opposition to the document. The most contentious issue, it seems, is what role federalism should play in the new government. Hoping to persuade some opponents to vote approvingly, the drafters offer last-minute concessions in the form of post-ratification amendments. In the end, while not overwhelmingly, the constitution does pass.

So are we talking about Iraq in 2005? Or the United States in 1787-1789?

I'll admit, historical comparisons rely on thematic generalities and are tenuous at best. But my point here is not to suggest that Iraq will automatically flourish as a federal state the way the United States has. It is merely to argue that it won't necessarily not. True, Iraq has its share of difficulties, including foreign militaries on its soil and the continuous threat of terrorist attack against its citizens. Then again, Iraq has a significant number of women and ethnic minorities determining the fate of its constitution, something the US did not have. And drafting the Iraq constitution was an open process, unlike the highly secretive deliberations that occurred in Philadelphia in 1787.

Still, the predominant media attitude is that Iraq is destined to fail. The subhead to last Friday's USA Today article, for example, declared the vote a lose-lose situation: "Approval...could alienate Sunnis; defeat could bring more instability." Other news outlets spent more time predicting major terrorist violence or questioning the vote's legitimacy than analyzing the long-term implications of a popularly-approved federal government in the region. For its part, CNN.com could find only two ramifications of the constitution's approval: December elections and, maybe, troop withdrawals. It seems the coverage was either a collective shrug of indifference or devoted to what could have gone wrong.

So what about the things that could have gone right, and did? Just what does last weekend's presumptive approval portend for Iraq, anyway? Well, I don't know. That's right, I don't know, at least not any more than the next guy. Yet I refuse to extrapolate a few stumbles along the way into certain doom. Just because the path was not easy nor the vote unanimous does not render the constitution fatally flawed. Transitions from one form of government to another are rarely easy. After declaring independence, it took the United States thirteen years and a failed first attempt before establishing an effective constitutional government. Maybe Iraq will get there sooner, maybe later. The world will have to wait and see. But even with all the prevailing pessimism, I remain steadfastly optimistic.

Christopher Swindle is a doctoral student in the history department.