You've probably heard of the spectacular migrations of hundreds of millions of monarch butterflies, which home in on one small region of Mexico for the winter then return as far north as Canada in a flight of thousands of miles that takes more than one generation. Clearly the insects have an inherited "map" of where to go, but what compass do they use?

It seems they have at least two compasses. One is a "time-compensated sun compass," located in their antennae, which calculates bearings from the angle of the sun corrected for the time of day.

But butterflies can also use the Earth's magnetic field to navigate. The butterfly antennae contain a protein molecule called cryptochrome, which can apparently act as a magnetic compass when exposed to blue or violet light. Human beings and other mammals also have a cryptochrome in their retinas, albeit in slightly different form, but until recently it was thought not to have magnetic directional properties.

Recently Dr. Steven M. Reppert of the University of Massachusetts Medical School and his colleagues took the human version of the gene that's the recipe for cryptochrome and genetically engineered it into flies, replacing the flies' own version. They then showed that, presented with two routes in a maze, the flies could choose a magnetic direction they had been trained to associate with a sugar reward, and they did so just as well with the "human" cryptochrome as with their own.

If it is at least possible to use our cryptochrome molecules to sense direction from the Earth's magnetic field, do we?

It's early morning, but I know it's going to be a long day - and a fun one.  How so much cool stuff can get crammed into a single week, and how I can concisely fit it all into this HFR, is bewildering.  Sit back and enjoy.  Off we go.

This was a baaaaaaad-to-the-bone week for Zero and the Dems.  May 8^th was Black Tuesday for them, simply disastrous. 

In Wisconsin, the desperate last gasp of the public unions to keep their gravy train rolling went right off the rails.  Gov. Scott Walker, whom they are rabidly trying to recall, got more votes in his primary than the two main Dems got in theirs combined. 

In West Virginia, Zero lost 42% of the vote in the Democrat Presidential Primary to a fellow named Keith Judd.  Keith is not from West Virginia.  He currently lives in Texas, where he resides at the Texarkana Federal Prison as Inmate 11593-051.

In Judd's bio on VoteSmart, he lists his religion as "Rastafarian-Christian," and his mother as actress Lillian Russell, who died in 1922.  He was born in 1958.  Obviously, no West Virginian voted for this weirdo, they voted against Zero.  Why?  Because they hate his guts.  Zero is destroying their state with his religious war against coal.

Something this absurd is more than a humiliating joke upon President Gutsy Call.  It's a portent. Tens of millions of Americans in every state are West Virginians now.  They hate Zero's guts for what he has done to their country and what he has done to their lives and livelihoods.  They would vote for Keith Judd, Mickey Mouse, or a Yellow Dog before voting for him. 

Do increases in government spending increase or decrease the number of jobs?

Conventional wisdom is they will increase jobs, and a few left-wing economists, such as Paul Krugman of the New York Times, frequently are trotted out by reckless politicians and some in the news media to argue that we need more government spending in order to create jobs.

If this were true, we should be able to see it in the historical evidence, so let's look at the numbers.

Government spending grows each year, but what is relevant is whether it is increasing or decreasing as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) and how it relates to the percentage of the adult labor force at work. As can be seen in the chart below , since 1929 there is an inverse relationship between increasing the size of government and job creation.

Who are the most unpleasant people on the internet? Obviously with so much competition, it is, to paraphrase Dr Johnson, like arguing the toss between lice and fleas. Disability rights activists would be a strong contender.  Thanks to them, money which could go to the genuinely needy is instead being hijacked by scroungers and fakes.

Yet this doesn't just apply to disability rights, of course. It applies to almost everything in the political domain. Pick any issue - the environment, education, healthcare, the economy - and time and again you'll find the agenda has been successfully hijacked by a handful of zealots who are not remotely representative of the broader public interest.

Why? Because politicians will do almost anything for a quiet life and find it much easier to buy off noisy troublemakers by capitulating to their demands, however unreasonable, than to take a principled stand.

Also, of course, it's much, much easier for a lobby group to make a powerful, emotive case for more government spending on its favorite deserving cause than it is for the government to explain why it can't afford it.

I don't know about you lot, but I've had just about enough of this apathy, ignorance, purblind denialism and culpable dishonesty.

The financial crisis in Europe has resulted in the appointment of new prime ministers in both Greece and Italy, by in reality the Germans and French, rather than through the ballot box in Greece and Italy. This raises the question, "Is it possible to have both a bureaucratic welfare state and a democracy that protects individual liberties?"

In the United States, as well as most other countries, the people are increasingly governed and regulated by unelected bureaucrats who create "administrative law."

The rise of the Bureaucratic State, at least in the U.S., is only about 80 years old. The number of federal employees grew slowly over the first hundred years of the American Republic so by the time of the first Grover Cleveland administration in the 1880s, there were still fewer than 100,000 federal civilian employees. By 1925, the number had grown to about a half a million, and now there are almost 3 million civilian federal government employees, plus another 17 million state and local government employees.

There are two fundamental reasons for this trend: