Earlier this week, Jackson, 50, filed legal papers making the Sycamore Valley Ranch Company the new owner.

The company is linked to investment firm Colony Capital, which bailed the singer out in March when he owed $24.5m £16m on the property.

When it bought the debt, Neverland was a week away from being auctioned off.

The refinancing deal had meant that Jackson could keep the sprawling property.

Jackson, whose huge catalogue of hit records includes Billie Jean, Thriller and Man in the Mirror, has not lived at Neverland since he was acquitted of child molestation charges in 2005.

Fantasy land

It is not clear what will now happen to the property, which he bought in 1987.

The property, which Jackson aimed to turn into a fantasy land, is named after an island in the story Peter Pan, where children never grow up.

He built a zoo and fairground on the 2,800 acre 1,100 hectare property which is north west of Santa Barbara.

It was closed in 2006 after Jackson failed to pay his staff or maintain proper insurance.

(Source: BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Jackson gives up Neverland ranch.)

Editorial:

This just seems wrong.  Then again, I’ve always felt the same about the ranch itself.

Though, what other residence so perfectly displays the enigma that is MJ?  And, who is just chillin’ living next door to Neverland?  How weird must that be?

Also, I’ve always wondered what would happen if MJ got with Mariah Carey.  Who would regress to the younger age?  Currently, she’s stuck on 13 (butterflies, rainbows, charm bracelets, etc – though moving up to 15 with Nick Cannon), and Jackson is stuck on 11.

Things that make you go “hmmmmm”.

Biden vs Palin

Hey, I told you so…

(CNN) – A national poll of people who watched the vice presidential debate suggests that Democratic Sen. Joe Biden won but also hints that Republican Gov. Sarah Palin exceeded expectations.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey is not a measurement of the views of all Americans, since only people who watched the debate were questioned.

(Source: CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive – Poll: Biden wins debate, Palin exceeds expectations « – Blogs from CNN.com.)

Editorial:

C’mon, just give it to me on this one.  Will someone say I called it?  I’ll give it a day or so to really set in.  But watch, we’re going to see more Palin now.  And yes, Biden was killing it.  Clearly won.  I watched it on CSPAN, then went back and confirmed with the little CNN live opinion ticker.  So, yes I watched it twice.  Palin seemed to truly admire Joe Biden.  I wonder if she was rooting for him in the Democratic nominee race?  I’m also surprised Biden counter that we have to acknowledge where the nation went wrong in order to enact “reform”.  Still, Biden was masterful and Palin didn’t fail.  This debate was far better than the first presidential debate.

A more frivolous side note: Why is it that Gov. Palin can say words like “proliferate” but steadily says “nucular”?  Or “My kids … is near and dear to my heart.” All of those teachers in your family and no one taught you “nuclear”?  Eerily similar to Bush.  More so that she’s one “God forbid” event from his office, ‘dontcha know?’  Thankfully, Biden aced his single use of “Bridge to Nowhere”.  Also, Palin reigned in the “mavericks”, good job.  Maybe a bigger flag pin would distract me.  At least SNL should be funny.

P.S.> Fact Checking with BBC News

All things considered, it’s about a draw Matthew Yglesias, Think Progress

US presidential rivals Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama have attacked each other over foreign policy and the economy, in their first debate.

Mr Obama said a $700bn (£380bn) plan to rescue the US economy was the “final verdict” on years of Republican rule.

He said Mr McCain had been “wrong” on Iraq and tried to link him to President Bush. The Republican senator described his rival as too inexperienced to lead.

Neither landed a knockout blow but polls suggested Mr Obama did better.

An immediate telephone poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corp found 51% said Mr Obama had won, to 38% for Mr McCain.

A poll of uncommitted voters by CBS News found that 39% gave Mr Obama victory, 25% thought John McCain had won, and 36% thought it was a draw.

Both campaigns claimed victory, with Mr McCain’s team saying their candidate had shown a “mastery on national security issues” while Mr Obama’s aides said he had passed the commander-in-chief test “with flying colours”.

Tens of millions of Americans were expected to watch the debate on TV, with only about five weeks to go before the 4 November elections.  (Source: BBC NEWS | Americas | US rivals spar in first TV debate)

Editorial:

Yes, the debate was a technical draw.  The thing about that, however, is subjectively the debate will thus be a win for the Obama camp.  Why?  Because this was supposed to be the debate that John McCain won.  It’s his strength.  And there is no doubt he has experience in issues of foreign policy.  The loss is given that Obama held is own and, overall, appeared more Presidential than McCain.

McCain was wise to try and hammer the “naive” point, however he did it to an almost patronizing degree, which came off as him losing his composure.  However, any time he attacked Obama, the Illinois senator corrected him making McCain seem divisive and out to spin the facts.  Unfortunately for McCain, he did not notably correct Obama on any attack against the Arizona senator thus legitimizing the Democrat’s authority on the facts.

McCain was right to focus on “the surge”, but that’s about all he could say in terms of the “War in Iraq”.  As well, Obama was able to one-up McCain pointing out that the decision-makers on the strategy there essentially agree with his plans for future military action in the region (basically that Afghanistan is the real battleground).  McCain was at his best when explaining the fragility of the situation there, but did not follow that by appearing the most prepared to handle the matter.  In fact, Obama nailed him on handling delicate matters citing McCain’s “Bomb Iran” song.  However the junior Senator then gave away that advantage overemphasizing how wrong McCain was in his decision to go to Iraq rather than solidifying points that not only his past but his future judgment regarding the “War on Terror” have been most wise.

In terms of foreign policy overall, McCain was able to parade his experience but Obama matched that with foresight, unveiling that even the Bush administration is starting to enact policies that the Democratic Presidential nominee championed throughout his campaign while McCain leans toward the failed ways of the past.  They also argued different points of the fact that Kissinger did promote talks with Iran without preconditions (Kissinger later said “non-presidential” talks – something the Bush administration is currently pursuing).

In terms of economic policy, the debate kicked off with that, which is inevitable given the situation.  Neither candidate could comment on whether they were going to vote for the bill that was out at that time, however Obama laid out four core principles he thought should be in the bill.  The third debate between them will address the economy more.  Obama will be going into that debate as the stronger candidate given that McCain has previously acknowledged his weakness on economic issues.  And given the fact that the new economic bailout bill is (according to Sen. John Kerry) founded around the principles Obama laid out in the debate and supposedly better for the American taxpayer.

I’ve been reading a lot about people being disappointed with the first debate, but this is how debates always are.  As well, they are MUCH more subtle than people seem to remember every four years.  As they should be, both candidates know better than to shoot off at the mouth and sink their campaign.  In fact, a portion of this election will come down to who can keep the most level head and restore America’s relationships across the world.  Surely we’ve seen what a faux maverick can do in the White House.

I was in the commons (the park) downtown the other night with my homegirl just talking. Clearly, this was her idea. I don’t find chillin’ in a park downtown at night to be the wisest nor safest place to chat but i figured she’d get uncomfortable soon and we’d be on our way. So as the random winos and crazies who take residence in the vicinity made cameos in our causerie, she and I observed the subtleties of the subdued nightlife. I was sharing a theory on relationships when the sight of two dudes on Segways made me trail off mid-sentence. Why? ‘Cause i’d simply never seen Segways in real life, simple as that. They looked convenient and fun, in that way that life sometimes imitates art (or at least the art of commercials). I thought “Hmph, cool, but is that really necessary?”

The next morning I noticed this article on BBC News about an 80-story building with rotating apartments set to be built in Dubai:

The Dynamic Tower design is made up of 80 pre-fabricated apartments which will spin independently of one another.

“It’s the first building that rotates, moves, and changes shape,” said architect David Fisher, who is Italian, at a news conference in New York.

“This building never looks the same, not once in a lifetime,” he added.

The 420-metre (1,378-foot) building’s apartments would spin a full 360 degrees, at voice command, around a central column by means of 79 giant power-generating wind turbines located between each floor. (BBC News)

Though my first thought was “wow”. The consequent thought was “why?” As in, ‘that seems a bit superfluous?’. Surely not everyone in Dubai is that ballin’ that some of the approximately $700 million dollars it will cost to construct this behemoth over the next two years couldn’t be used somewhere else. I mean i know every time I hear… well… anything about Dubai there is some sort of opulence involved, but we know good-and-well no nation is that balling. I mean somebody has to build this thing. And you know they aren’t driving off in a Maybach or something (ask Human Rights Watch).

Then I thought, ‘Fine… if you have the time and materials like that, do your thing’. I can understand someone wanting to accomplish such an ambitious architectural feat just for the sake of progress. Then you read about the building envisioned to include enough wind turbines on it not only to power the building but actually feed excess back into the grid. Word? I guess if you are going to ball out on a building of nearly complete decadence, you might as well make it as unobtrusive as possible, you know, pretty enough to draw tourists (and help the local economy), green enough to help folks excuse whatever environmental destruction you caused in construction.

Also, it’s 2008. We should have rotating skyscrapers by now. Yes, in my lifetime alone we’ve seen the near-pandemic spread of the personal computer, the internet, digital cameras, cellphones and all the “universe-in-one” devices that spawned from it, not to mention half the stuff we don’t know “they” can do yet. Cool, good for you. But there’s still a lot of technology we don’t have yet. I mean folks are barely getting up on solar power – sun’s been around. We’ve been doing the best we can with the smaller/faster/better improvements, but the expectations of the imagination set the bar high as f*ck for this first century of the new millennium. How many movies, books, tv shows set all these advancements by like 2021? Shoot, look at the Jetsons. We don’t have biped robots doing our housework for us. Moving sidewalks are really isolated to the airport. And i’ve heard no plans to whip out flying cars (especially not in this economy). I mean not everything is feasible but still…

Alright, so maybe we don’t need the moving sidewalks, I mean Americans could shed a few pounds. And yes, maybe since I-Robot I’m less comfortable with a bot doing my housework (though to be fair to robots, people still go crazy too). Also I believe a very impractical flying car does exist, but it saps so much power that they just tether it by cable to the power source for now. Besides the first dude to have a flying car is going to have to go through all kinds of bullsh*t. Probably have to have a pilot’s license. Then meander the bureaucracies of actually getting that joint declared street legal, then air legal. Also, a body has to decide what fly zones ole buddy could fly in or roads he could “drive” … over. And what about the first flying-car-jacking? Surely it could be done. However, in terms of convenience/ability and just like this ‘dynamic tower’ or the rich people that buy trips into space, I’m sure the rest of us would say “Is it really that crucial?” Then they streamline it, make it accessible to everyone, and we all act like we were supposed to have it ’cause “it’s the future!” (Simple example: Blu-ray.) I guess that their shift in “necessity” is just the transition of progress.