
As the data has suggested for some time, we're doing well with our plan to put a million people out of their homes this year. "One of every 78 U.S. housing units, or 1.28% of the total, was subject to at least one foreclosure filing in the first six months of the year. That's a total of 1.65 million properties." By the way, how correlated are unemployment and foreclosure rates? Math explains: quite.

The Gulf Oil Spill: it's only 1/7th of the Superdome! But it's more than 15 Washington Monuments! It's only 9,200 average-size living rooms! By my new favorite metric, that I just did the math on, the amount of oil spilled would fill the gas tanks of 5,985,781 2010 Mercedes Benz E350 sedans! How should we feel about these numbers? "If 15 ½ Washington Monuments only fill the Superdome one-seventh of the way, then you could actually fit 93 more Washington Monuments in there. But shouldn't you clean up the oil first?"

A study of 224 publications that were launched between 1986 and 2006 and honored as a best new publication by the Library Journal found that: "34 percent of these newly launched 'best' magazines failed within the first five years, with 13 failing within their first year alone. And while another 37 percent of these magazines are still being published, Black notes that this number is skewed because it includes some launched as recently as 2006." (Other studies show a "90 percent overall failure rate of magazines launched between 1985 and 2002.") But now? Or at least, between 1994 to 2003? 54 percent failed in the first five years. [...]

There's a segment of the journalism and media-product-making world that believes that paying sources for their exclusive version of events is a great business technique. It's competitive, it's efficient and it's not usually terribly expensive. (Unless you are talking about pictures of Angelina Jolie's babies, in which case it's very pricey-in 2008, People and Hello! together paid $14 million, to charity, for pictures of the Jolie-Pitt twins.) Over the weekend, Gawker paid an acquaintance of the insane balloon boy's family-I'm not even going to use their names, if that's okay?-to tell his story. It was pretty interesting, and damning, if not entirely conclusive.

Recently, Nick Paumgarten in the New Yorker had someone explain that if you represented the national debt as a basketball, that then the average American's income would be, in comparison, impossible to see with any microscope, no matter how powerful. Not entirely so, claims a physics dude in this week's letters to the editor! This physics dude, using an average income of $91K a year, cough, says that "the size of a grain representing the income of $91,000 is 1/493 the diameter of a nine-inch basketball, or about half a millimetre." See the above to-scale graphic, and be… reassured? Intrigued? Horrified?