If the information we're being funneled these days isn't enough to confuse and frustrate a genius, then my confusion will just have to do. Consider what we've been exposed to the last few days in national news stories:
"60 Minutes" had a story on a grape-peel-based pill that keeps people alive longer by making them less susceptible to a variety of diseases. On the same show, reporters talked to a bunch of people who skinny themselves into long life. The 1,000 calorie a day (that's about two stalks of celery and glass of V8) crowd almost unanimously talked about being hungry all the time. We're once again looking at length of life without examining quality. And, for heaven's sake, where are we going to put all these old people? There's a point of diminishing returns with longevity.
Public Radio did one of its occasional interviews with a British chef whose name I forget, and the chef filled our heads with visions of white flour and sugar, canned and sweetened pears, butter, eggs, cream and--it seemed to me--a complete list of all the things I can't eat. Then she talked about how delicious the result is without mentioning that it would likely send some of us into diabetic shock and the rest of us would just get fat. And then get diabetes. And then go into shock.
Meanwhile, there's a big argument about why birth control funds for the poor are included in funds to correct the economy. OK, let's say this slowly: fewer people means fewer people to feed, fewer people to consume, fewer people to pollute, fewer people to absorb dwindling resources, and so on. It means fewer poor people in need of government services since most of those getting these birth control funds are poor and will not have children they can't take care of. This one's really and truly easy to understand if you're open to it.
It just keeps getting confusinger and confusinger.