cut on the bias

Absolutely awesome

Everyone, Doc and Mrs. Doc are parents! Their newborn adopted son is Camden Curtis, and he's just gorgeous. Go to Doc's site, I Am Right, and wish them well in this new venture. Doc and the Mrs. will be fantastic parents; Camden is one lucky little boy.

Our personal American Idol: Mike Hendrix!

The blogosphere's own rockabilly star, Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury, has been featured in a mag local to him - Creative Loafing. All I can say is, I'm glad for that newspaper.

Places to go, things to see

I've been incommunicado for a few days and will likely be sporadic in posting for a couple more. But things move on in the blogosphere, so I'll take a few moments to send you around to Where Things Are Hap'nin':

Dean's World is hosting this week's Carnival of the Vanities. You owe it to yourself to check it out.

NZ Bear has another great idea, which is to get the Very Newest Blogs out there. I've checked his list, and already found a new daily stop: The Dead Parrot Society.

E.L. Core, of the fine View from the Core, is celebrating his blogiversary. Go wish him well!

Jordana and company at Curmudgeonry have joined Greeblie's cabal; check it out, and fix your link (as I will do sometime this weekend. I never said I was timely).

And, finally, the Timekeeper is back blogging at Horologium. Go see!

As for me, well, I'm kinda happy. I mentioned before that I had to go see a surgeon. I hate to find doctors in NJ because there are so many and I have no way of knowing who's good and who's not. So after chasing around here and there, I finally broke down and looked up UMDNJ (University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey) online. I found a couple of general surgeons on the faculty at UMDNJ, called one, and actually spoke to him in person! I think he was as shocked as me; his secretary was out and the switchboard had given me his direct number. But he was very pleasant, I told him briefly the necessary details, and he agreed to see me next week. So I'm going to consult with a surgeon who teaches surgery. How cool is that?

Edit, edit, edit!

The Lufkin, TX, newspaper is dumping Dowd until she explains her deliberate distortion of a Bush quote. It's about time the collective journalism world started holding the NY Times and its writers accountable instead of constantly bowing in groveling humility at its altar. But... I do highly recommend close editing of any column where you take the Times to task. The Lufkin paper includes this:

Dowd violated one of the cardinal tents of the newspaper business: Don't mislead your readers, because your credibility is your only currency.

Actually, I believe that would be a cardinal tenet. Could very well have been a typo, but still. Edit, edit, edit!

At least the sentiment is dead on.

(I know I'm being way picky, but recently I've been jarred when published fiction has included such clunkers as "hellbent for leather" and "prodigy" for "progeny". Argh. Where are the editors??)

[Link via Instapundit]

UPDATE: More info on "hell bent for leather". I've always read "hell-bent" as determined to do something regardless of the consequences or cost; one definition says "recklessly" determined. The "hell" part is saying, even the threat of hell won't stop me. The "hell for leather" part means, you're doing something fast or hard or all-out; I've usually seen it in the context of the old West, where, for example, you'd ride your horse "hell for leather" to get somewhere. So your leather tack would be strained by your intense use of it.

Now, certainly these two have similar meanings, or at least complementary ones. But "hell bent for leather" makes absolutely no sense at all. "Hell-bent on getting that car" does, but who would be so intent on getting leather that they'd risk hell to do it? I think the term is a mixing of the two other phrases by people who didn't understand what the originals meant, and just merged them because, well, they remember "hell bent" and they think they remember something about leather, so wasn't that, "Hell-bent for leather"? Noooo!! It makes sense about like when my aunt said she was out on a limb without a paddle.

But the mixed term has been used enough to get into the American Dictionary of Idioms, which makes me cringe. My friend Desiree sent me the link to this page, which explains both phrases and then the unfortunate combination of the two. It's very similar to my understanding of the situation.

People, stop and think about what an idiom means. It had its origins in some activity or context that made material sense to its originators. And it's only valuable as colorful description when used properly.

Happiness is... A Carnival! (of Vanities, that is)

This will stay on top of the blog until the new Carnival is up next week - to participate in the 37th edition, contact Dean at Dean's World. Please take some time every day to read more of these excellent entries. I was very impressed with them all.

I'm delighted to be hosting this week's Carnival of the Vanities, where we can see the Best of Blogs for the past week. This all started with the inestimable Bigwig at Silflay Hraka who, like all good entreprenurs, took his excellent idea public and sent it on the road. Think of this as a cross-section of the blogs, a chance to check out new faces and places reading posts that the bloggers themselves think are their best of the week.

The posts are in the order I received them, except for a special section on place blogging at the bottom - a lovely treat to close out the list. There's a lot here, but I'm going to leave the post at the top of my blog for a week, so take the time to read a few each day so you can savor each one. They're worth it.

A few notes: When more than one link was sent, I used only one, usually the first listed. I would encourage those who sent more than one to add a post to the top of your site pointing new readers to the other posts, many of which seemed to be quite worthy as well. Also, I tried to link to both the individual post and the main weblog itself, in case the cursed blog links take a powder.

Note: Below is a late addition, due to technical issues, but I think it adds graphic interest to open with it. So, I give you Day by Day:

And now for the rest of the fine entries:

Top 10 Reasons Women Can't Join Combat Units - already my short hairs are bristling. Anton at Last Man Dancing does a little Letterman riff that had me chuckling enough not to send in The PMS Troops. It was a close thing, though.

Laurence of Amish Tech Support, ever vigilant, points out the differences between coverage of an Arafat speech by the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz, in Were they covering the same speech? You know I love media bias pointers, and this hits the spot.

So what's with Al Qaeda? Steve at Tiny Little Lies points out exactly what I was thinking about the bombings in Saudi Arabia last week - it shows that Al Qaeda is neither very strong nor very bright. Excellent post. And I love this phrase: He may have blown the biscuit wheels right off his own gravy train. Mmm... biscuits. (Don't miss the post, linked below, by Venomous Kate who takes a different view.)

The Inscrutable American outlines what needs to happen in India to move the country toward prosperity. It's interesting that in several points he could be talking about the United States.

The Internet is bringing down the Tower, according to Kevin at blogoSFERICS - Tower Records, that is. The record giant that orginated in Kevin's hometown of Sacramento is in deep trouble, and he laments its passing.

James DiBenedetto at Eleven Day Empire takes on Molly Ivins, the Texas idiot fugitive Democrats and fascism, all in one post. Whew.

Venomous Kate of Electric Venom takes us to school about Al-Qaeda and whether their recent attacks in Saudi Arabia were "successful" on some reasonable scale. She says yes. It's a definite contrast to the post by Steve at Tiny Little Lies (linked above) - worth reading the two together.

Want off Blogspot? Not planning on busting the bandwidth bank anytime soon? Dave Worley of greeblie blog is looking for bloggers to adopt and move to MT. And for everyone else, he's got a new open forum where anyone with an email address can long on and vent.

Craig at MT Politics writes on the Glendale hazing incident, and the lessons not learned. It's a fine rumination on personal responsibility, and the difficulties of learning it when your parents don't require it.

John Ray of Dissecting Leftism defends a conservative archbishop who is being hounded by the Leftist Australian media.

Dean at Dean's World gives us a little history on the political magazines that have an influence far beyond what their circulation would suggest, and explains why that's true. Check out his lists of the magazines, and see if you've missed some of them. I know my reading list just grew.

Michele at A Small Victory comes face to face again with the familiar pain of 9/11 when she comes across a new book with a very personal meaning. It was a reminder to her - and to us all - that it's a day that shaped our lives, and will move us to tears for as long as we're here.

James at Outside the Beltway says that family farming is "essentially outmoded", a provocative statement but one worth considering.

Andrea at Too Much To Dream sends what she calls "a bit of a snark", which those of you who read Andrea know means it's a lovely post full of spleen and delightful turns of phrase. A good post for aspiring ranters to read. (What's it about, you ask? Does it matter? It's Andrea.)

Steve at Ravenwood's Universe gave me nightmares with this post about a friend who won't leave; I was so into it, having had a few similar scares myself, that when he shifted gears it took me a few seconds to catch up. It's a great post. Read it.

Humor columnist Madeleine Begun Kane at MadKane revisits her old high school alma mater with interesting results - a little scandal, a little Seinfeld, and a slipped-in reference to a Thousand Points of Light. Check out her other posts too - she makes me testy sometimes but she's got a keen humor even when it's directed at Dubya.

I wish I'd been in the movie theater lobby for the "Dirty Little Monkey" exchange in the post from Solonor of Solonor's Ink Well. Don't have liquid in your mouth when you read it, unless you want to clean your computer screen.

Wow. That's my first and best reaction. WOW! I want to try this in my classes, only it doesn't quite fit... John at John Lemon's Barrel of Fish explains a very clever way he gets his college students to think about the redistribution of ... anything earned. I don't want to give it away, but it's quite Machiavellian. I love it. (If his links are screwy - it took me about 5 times to get it to load - go to the main page and scroll to "MONEY FOR NOTHING AND YOUR GRADES FOR FREE" on Wed., May 15.)

Northstar at The People's Republic of Seabrook takes a trip through his old hometown newspaper and decides... he's better off where he is.

Murray at Silent Running clues us in to the Ten Signs Your Country is in Trouble. Given that his country is New Zealand, I able to chuckle, shake my head and say, "Those Kiwis!" (No, I don't want to see any comparable budget chart of the US.) Any rumors that his post involves Helen Clark are scurrilous, planted by Aussies, exactly right um, no comment.

It's "Karl Rove Week" at Seth's The Talking Dog, and this post questions why a man of Rove's talents works for the Bushies. An interesting question.

Frank at IMAO will shortly appear on a "WANTED" Poster at Handgun Control Headquarters if this post gets wide distribution. I think he'd really like that! So spread it around, or we'll send him after you with his cool little assault rifle.

Cooling us off a little, CG Hill at Dustbury takes us on a Sunday drive in Oklahoma, a meandering route that evokes front porches and lemonade.

The Mudville Gazette's Greyhawk, a military man, reminds us that Memorial Day is coming soon with this moving post about the ones who keep us safe - and don't always come home. I suggest reading it when you have some time to think on it, and say a word of thanks for our soldiers.

DaGoddess slaps Target around as she lies yuckily sick and tries to figure out how to take her medicine. I couldn't resist this, given the recent discussion on Wal-Mart vs Target.

Rick at The Rant has a very thought-provoking post on the subtle costs of moving knowledge jobs out of the US. It makes sense.

I don't quite know what to say about Mark's post at The Bemusement Park. He wrote a letter to his dad, killed last year in a car accident, and it's one of the most moving things I've ever read. I cried. It's something I'll be printing out and saving. You'll know why when you read it.

Kenneth at A Mind That Suits eulogizes the late icon of country music, June Carter Cash. It is a history, a tribute, and a very personal goodbye.

TheYeti from Tales from a Yet Suit puts on his extra thick fur and asks a friend whether there is a sexual reward for fulfilling stereotypical gender roles. He then winks at a bartender. (TheYeti sent me that link info, but I want to add that I found his propositions quite provocative, and will likely deal with them myself later this week.)

What we need in Saudi Arabia is a little instability - or maybe a lot, says Jack Rich at Haganah.

Turkey? Really? David at Clubbeaux is planning to pack up the family and move to the Mediterranean. And the way he describes it, I'm tempted myself.

Wizbang identifies another reason to hate Delaware. Who needed a reason?

Bongs and Chong and Life and Fame - Joe at Attaboy has them all in this funny post about life. We're just happy he didn't have the same negative vibes at midnight that Cinderella did. (And tell me, Joe - did you show your daughter that news clip?)

Aaron at God of the Machine evokes Duchamp and Warhol in an interesting little look at art, humor and the humorless non-art of today. Well, that last was my estimation of his last point; you knew I couldn't keep my opinion to myself.

Not seen Matrix: Reloaded yet? Dodd of Ipse Dixit has you covered in this review; he's The Man when it comes to sci-fi and movies. I've heard negative reviews, but Dodd says it's good so I'll be on my way to the theater... as soon as I remember where it is...

Is atheism treated unfairly? The Raving Atheist explores the double standard which condemns atheist advocacy -- but virtually no other form of ideological persuasion -- as "evangelism." I especially like his closing sentence (not necessarily agree with it, but a good turn of phrase).

We must treat friends as friends and enemies as enemies, says TR Fogey in this post at Tobacco Road Fogey - Israel deserves our support; how and whether the Bush Administration gives it will affect the 2004 election.

Dave's in Russia, and he sends a letter with a pretty scary scenario. We can thank Mandrake and shell at Across the Atlantic for providing the space for Dave to terrify us. I think I'm out of town that day too.

Fran of Northwest Notes, however, was just in NYC and it was quite a pleasant experience. She writes of it with charm and humor, making me realize that sometimes I do like NYC.

Ever just hung around finishing up your work when there was an announcement to evacuate the building? I have. Chuck at You Big Mouth, You! gives a cautionary tale and some thoughts on emergency procedures that might just keep you safe.

Matt is again Overtaken by Events, slamming the Texas idiot fugitive Democrats while simultaneously bemoaning the lack of smart hot babes in his high school. It's a neat trick!

Bryan at Arguing with Signposts mourns the closing of Les Miserables, which ended its Broadway run this past weekend.

A floating salary for Congresscritters linked to the federal deficit? I like! Eric at Viking Pundit makes a great case for it in A Modest Proposal. When do we start?

So how can the Demcratic presidential candidates stay - or even get - competitive on defense? Steven at The Grille ponders the question, and has some good advice. (Steven, I hope they don't listen!)

Feste at Feste...a fool's blog plays the tune for a French weasel dance, calling the moves like he sees them. I think he needs to be the next Ambassador to France - if we're going to have one.

The World According to Pete is a quirky place, as you can see in this RANDOM BITS SE7EN - wherein we learn about aggressive women, tomatoes at McDonald's and Dexatrim. See what I mean?

Solomonia takes exception to the claim of a pro-Palestinian group that they are operating "in the spirit of Gandhi", and shares a little history of Gandhi to show why that claim is "perverse".

button at The Eclectic Chapbook deconstructs David Warren's article saying Salam Pax of Where's Raed is probably one of Saddam's people.

Not gotten your Monty Python fix lately? Never fear, CPO Sparkey has a great little sketch, "Monty Python Meets Zacarias Moussaoui ", at Sgt. Stryker.

This week, we have a new feature: A section on place blogging. A group of bloggers asked if they could have a section where posts on a sense of place were collected, which I thought was a great idea. While I tend to focus more on political blogs just because that's my own personal obsession, there are so many blogs out there with beautiful, contemplative writing on other aspects of life. Without further ado, I give you, with its own introduction:

PLACE BLOGGING

Place bloggers write, on one level, about the place where they live: its ecology, its beauty, the particular quality of nature in that place, and their relation to it. On another level, place bloggers are concerned with larger questions of ecology and land use, the future of the environment, and human beings' relation to (or alienation from) the world we inhabit and share. And on a still deeper level, many place bloggers are exploring the whole notion of "place" itself: where and what is this elusive idea of "place", in its broadest sense, and what does it mean to us as spiritual beings in perpetual search of something called "home"? We invite you to explore with us...
--Fred First

Sainteros opens nicely with thoughts on the value of place blogging - what it can and can't do in evoking place. It might not be real, but I could taste Ann's fudge sauce, and see the view from the second-story porch.

Chris at Bowen Island Journal adds more thoughts on blogging place; this struck me particularly: "We are not strangers in our own lan(d)scapes, and nor are we alone in the community of humans on earth..." Touching people's thoughts almost in real time is one of the best parts of the Internet.

"Familiarity breeds respect," says Fred at Fragments from Floyd, and it's easy to see how much he loves his place. Don't miss Fred's great photography too.

Pica at Feathers of Hope ponders place from Davis, CA, a place where man and nature mix to create its own familiarity.

Place is inextricable from memory and muse, as Rana reminds us in this post about books, fishing and her Papa from Notes From An Eclectic Mind.

Lisa at Field Notes: asks - why write about place? It's a good question, well answered.

Numenius, also at Feathers of Hope, wonders what's up with bike path engineers. I saw the picture - now I'm wondering too.

Cassandra puts sense of place at the center of sense of self in this post on The Cassandra Pages about what sense of place is. She has lovely photos too, worth linking around the site. (If her direct link is not working, go to the main page, then to the archives for the Thursday, May 15 post.)

That's it! A truly incredible collection of thoughts and talent. It was a pleasure to read all 56 entries - I hope you take the time to read them all too. And don't miss the opportunity to participate next time, which will be hosted by Dean at Dean's World. Here's the list for hosts through July.

Help the good guys

A fire on base where Kevin of The Primary Main Objective is stationed has destroyed three tents with all the possessions of 29 soldiers and 12 Marines. Kevin has a PayPal button up to help those guys replace what they lost. On the day after Memorial Day, I encourage you to help out. It's a concrete way to show we're behind them - and even $5 from enough people goes a long way.

[Link via Andrea]

Note: I'm still not going to be at the computer much today. Hope you have a good one.

Just so you'll feel sorry for me

I went to the emergency room Friday night to have those Technical Difficulties looked into. It's been a rough week, the fifth week of fighting either cold or allergies, was at the doctor's only Tuesday with that, felt absolutely miserable all day Friday and wound up at the hospital at 7 p.m. I was tired and hurting but generally accepting of the ER experience - I brought a book (a novel about ritualistic vicious serial murder - just the thing to ease the worried mind). I was triaged 25 min into the experience, and taken back into the ER treatment area an hour after that - 8:30 p.m. The doctor showed up at 9:30 p.m. He walked in, introduced himself, and said, "So, what have you got to show me?" I said, "Nothing I'm very excited about having to show you." Ha. ER humor. He seemed unmoved. He evaluated the problem, said, "I'm giving you antibiotics, as strong as you'd get in a IV. And referring you to a surgeon." Then he was gone. Whoosh. The nurse came in later with the first round of antibiotics, I took them and she left. For about 20 minutes. I had totally, absolutely and thoroughly had it. When she came back I was lying there with my face in my hand just crying. 10 p.m. by this time. She said, "What's wrong?" I think, doh - I'm in the ER, lady, what do you think?!. I say, "It just hurts." She is finally sympathetic (not the best bedside manner), and rushes off. A few minutes later she's back with Percocet and prescriptions*. Then I'm released. The hospital is 4 blocks from my apartment. I have to drive myself home. So I'm discharged, drugged and in pain and feeling monumentally sorry for myself, into a relatively heavy rain, and I cry all the way to the car. Sniffle.

It really was sad, and really was not fun, and all that. But at the same time... you know, the day after, you just have to have a sense of humor about it all. At least that's how my mind works. How melodramatic can you get? I replay it in my head and it moves in slow motion, with gentle, wistful music in the background, the rainy empty street, nothing but the cone-shaped light spreading from the security lamps onto the sidewalk, and this sad tearful figure moving through it... Pitiful, very dramatic... I'll have to remember that for whatever novel I eventually write. That's what happens in my life, and why I'm such a natural for blogging - almost immediately after something in my life happens, it becomes a story, with characters and a plot line and scene setting. I haven't decided if that's a gift or just weird.

At least I have a sense of humor. It's the only way to really cope.

* I took the Percocet when I got home, with milk, but I hadn't eaten much all day and had taken some pretty rugged drugs on a virtually empty stomach. So about 90 min later the Percocet had the predictable nausea effect with the predictable result. I've got a nice stash of it now, but it's not going down the hatch unless I'm writhing in excruciating pain. Ibuprofen is doing fine, thank you.

A walk through Jersey City

I have something of a love-hate relationship with New Jersey, and even more so with Jersey City. I'm not a city person, by heritage or inclination, but sometimes the quirks and energy of living in the NYC metro area are very engaging. I'm glad I have lived here, even though I'll be pleased to leave. This week I took some photos of everyday Jersey City, things I see almost daily, to share with you.

Just a block away from where I work:

Sometimes the street displays are peculiarly... peculiar:

Meeting personal needs on Jersey Ave

One of my favorite things in Jersey City is the fruit markets, which have fresher produce cheaper than the supermarkets - and often things that make you go, "huh?". This one, which I visit on a regular basis, is typical:

Fruit market on Bay Street - the one with organic packaged goods too

Several sections of older Jersey City boast brownstones, complete with apartments you enter under the stairway; those have courtyards of various sizes that are dressed in a wide range of plants and decorations - from nothing but bare concrete to a lush display worthy of any suburban gardener. This one is fairly typical - a desire for a garden, imperfectly realized:

Jersey City brownstone "yard"

A lot of other people don't have any kind of yard, even those referred to with scare quotes. They're lucky to have an old fire escape balcony:

Fire escape balconies on Jersey Ave

And in case you've ever wondered where you can get your dreams cheap, well, it's right here in Jersey City, on Newark Avenue:

The 99 cent store

There's lots more to see, and I'll probably do this again. It helps to look at where I live and work as a place with its own interest and charm.

Please stand by...

The owner of this blog* is experiencing technical difficulties that impede her ability to post. Any further explication of these difficulties - ANY - would immediately be logged under TMI. Trust me on this. What you need to know is: She is alive and apparently likely to stay that way for at least the foreseeable future, barring landing in the middle of a man-made or natural disaster. As soon as ever she is able to post, know that she will do so. The problem(s) will not cause long-term distress, nor likely a long term absence. Now's a good time to read more of the COTV, right?

* Please note that the technical difficulties are the blogger's, not the computer or the electricity or the ISP. FYI.

Making a nutritionist cry

I went to a lunch meeting where they ordered a sandwich for me. I didn't actually get to eat it until after the meeting, when I found:

buttered 6" Italian loaf
salami
prosciutto
fresh mozzarella
dried tomato steeped in olive oil & vinegar

This is called "A Soprano". I think because it's lethal.

(I didn't eat the meat - a bit much for me.)

UPDATE: Because I know you were dying to see it - here's the Soprano sandwich. I think you can tell why it has that name:

A public service

In the spirit of "All the news that's fit to print", Scott Ott of Scrappleface has done us all a public service - he's posted the staff directory of email addresses for the NY Times news staff. So. Now you know who to complain to.

Oh, and it's from the September 2002 staff directory so it's not the latest even though it's the one they send out now on request; also, the directory apparently only includes the emails of those who don't mind them being out there, so the list is incomplete. Better than nothing, though.

Sorry about the dearth

Well, I've been manhandling a post all morning, off and on, and so far it's got me down on the mat and the ref is counting. We'll see if I manage to win sometime today. That and the 7:30 a.m. doctor's appointment and, now, work where things are stacked up since I've been out, are working against me. Sooo... sorry. The COTV is looking to have at least 40 entries (and I'm accepting more until 5 p.m.), so I'll probably be working on that too. But tomorrow? Tomorrow there will be more to read than you can do in days. None of it mine, mind you, but that may not be a bad thing.

Oh, on the visit to the doc - it's allergies, she says. No infection. I'm now the proud owner of prescriptions for Flonase and Zyrtec. And I'm publicly acknowledging that my sister told me repeatedly that it was allergies and I scoffed at her. She was right. (ooohhh that hurt.) I did have a cold on top of it though. So there.

Something I find mighty annoying

I've noticed lately that trackback pings are showing up in my trackback section when my blog is not actually linked on the other site. Apparently what is happening is that Mr. Trackbacker has written a post on a topic I've also written on that he wants my readers to know about. He swoops in, collects the trackback code on my site, plugs it into his MT interface and voila! he has a trackback on my site when he saves his post without the messy bother of actually linking to me. The only reason I can think of for doing this is that he wants my traffic to flow his way but for whatever reason isn't interested in his traffic flowing my way. Perhaps he's being modest, and thinks well, shucks, I don't got no traffic no way, what good is it gonna do Ms. Cut on the Bias if'n I link her back? The answer is: It's good manners, if nothing else, thank you very much.

I would be inclined to think it's the "what good will my traffic do her?" in general, btw, if I hadn't caught someone who gets as much or more traffic than me doing it.

It's getting on my nerves. No, traffic is not the end all and be all; if I thought it was I wouldn't have taken down my counters. But I don't much care for sneaky little traffic siphons either, no matter if you have the best lil ole intentions in the world. I'm serving notice. As of now, if a trackback to your site shows up on one of my posts, if you haven't actually linked to me that trackback will be deleted with no discussion. Repeatedly, if necessary.

Somebody has to teach a little manners around this place.

Contrast

This is where I spent most of my vacation:

Mom in the backyard, looking toward the sunroom

And this is what I came back to:

Grand Central Station, downtown Manhattan
Waiting to transfer to a bus to Penn Station

Now, there's a lot to be said about Manhattan, some of it good. But I'd rather be in photo A than photo B. Both photos were taken with my new Nikon Coolpix 2100.

That is, btw, the house where I grew up, although the sunroom was added some time after I moved out. The fence was built by my father of old chesnut logs rescued from a fence on an abandoned homestead nearby. My mom is the gardener, and can take most of the credit for the design of the landscaping. My dad is the usually-reluctant although also usually-helpful grunt work.

Okay, here's the deal

Somewhere, somehow, someway there've been some misunderstandings develop about The Carnival of the Vanities (COTV).

Because I'm that way, I'm here to tell you the right of it. Or at least the Susanna version.

First, what in the heck is it? Way back in the twinkling dawn of blogs (last fall), Bigwig of Silflay Hraka thought, "There are so many great new blogs, but nobody knows about them. How can we get those blogs out in the view of the masses?" He asked bloggers to send a link to their best work of the previous week, and published them as a list. Thus was COTV born. After several weeks of carrying the load of compiling the list himself, Bigwig sent his baby on the road where it's been ever since, hosted by a series of blogs. (And he's still looking for more hosts, if you want to do it.)

Now here's the second big question: Who can participate? Only specific bloggers, or blogs that are at a certain threshold of hits? As far as I know, there are no limitations. If Glenn Reynolds wanted to put an entry in, well, I would make room although I'd wonder if he'd been zapped by his techno music equipment. But despite her nearly 2000 hits/day on average, Michele at A Small Victory has not permeated every corner of the blogosphere and darn it, she deserves to! A blog like, say, Cut on the Bias, clunking along with about half Michele's hits, certainly qualifies. And there's all those blogs that started last week, last month, three months ago... they're all welcome too, in fact highly encouraged to send along a link. Feel undiscovered? It's not the fault of COTV! We're trying!

Do you have to do it every week? Uh uh. You send one in when the muse has smacked you over the head and you feel the need to share it with the blogworld.

So. That should clear things up. I can't send invitations to everyone out there, so those of you visiting here will have to take on the task of spreading the word. I've gotten several entries from people who said, "My friend so&so said I should send this to you..." That makes me happy. That's getting the word out. That's encouraging the ones who need encouraging. Go do it. Let's make this the biggest Carnival ever. You have until 5 p.m. tomorrow to submit an entry. And I'll keep the Carnival at the top of my site for the next week. You'll get the benefit of every ounce of influence I can muster. Which isn't necessarily a lot, but I do what I can.

Foil them all! BWAHHAHAHA!!

Want to give it to the Big Business Record Companies AND Wal-Mart, while at the same time getting some excellent tunes?

You know what to do. Buy Dr. Frank's Eight Little Songs, just $8 post-paid. Laugh at the Big Guys! Thumb your nose at tight-lipped distributors! Support a blogger! Buy independent tunes from independent musicians!

Bwahahaha!

(It's good music too.)

(Oh, yeah, no appts available at the doctor's today. 7:30 a.m. tomorrow. I may live that long. We'll see if my face implodes or my ears blow out before then. I think I'm having a mild manic episode.)

Because it's Wal-Mart!!

I have to add one more thing. Craig at Lead and Gold takes down a NY Times article that gets all urban snotty about Wal-Mart.

It's true that Wal-Mart doesn't bring in a lot of "diversity" in, for instance, its book section. I don't go to Wal-Mart when I'm in the mood for romance reading because it has 13 shelves of Nora Roberts, 27 of Danielle Steele and 1 of any other writers combined. Hint: I'd rather chew on aluminum foil while scraping my nails on a chalkboard than read Roberts or Steele. When I want diversity, I go online. When I want it right now and cheap I go to Wal-Mart. That is, when I'm blessed to be close enough to one.

There's certainly good and bad about Wal-Mart. But the NY Times gets all snarky and dismissive, which Craig handles beautifully. As for how it limits things by making a select few superstars... what about Oprah? Did the Times do a snarky little article about how Oprah's Book Club singled out books by minorities or mooshy treacle feel-good books for superstardom? What about that? Eh, won't see it in the Times. Me, I personally think Oprah and Wal-Mart and whoever should do what pleases them. If the NY Times wants to get its panties all in a wad, why, it can branch out in fiction itself.

Oh, wait. It already did.

UPDATE: Scrappleface puts it all in perspective.

Things you should read

Steven Den Beste has an excellent article in today's OpinionJournal about the American military moving into the Information Age, and what it means for the tail to tooth ratio. [Link via Instapundit]

Tom Maguire at Just One Minute has not only fact-checked Tapped to within an inch of its shoddy life, he's also tracked down where Jayson Blair got the dough to pay his Amex bill. Sounds like Raines should be falling on Maguire's house. [Link via Junkyardblog]

Shanti at Dancing with Dogs is looking for a few good Iraqi women to join the blogging world. She's offering free blogging space and help, so spread the word. There's bound to be Iraqi 'Net savvy women out there.

Doc at I Am Right has made a slideshow called "Freedom". Go check it out and give him your feedback.

Cop and writer Bob Weir opines on the Scott and Laci Peterson case in The Texas Mercury; it's a good assessment, and as R. Alex says, not as annoying as the usual Peterson media fare.

Speaking of Alex, he apparently broke into my apartment and stole most of my to-do list. Hmph.

Newsday is reporting that two Supreme Court justices may step down next month; John Rosenberg is on the case already with links and some speculation.

Andy at World Wide Rant is having none of that white guilt.

Acidman answers all your questions. Really. Except I'm rather fond of t-shirts, myself.

Go read Venomous Kate because, well, she's got the coolest blog design and she's good.

Arthur Silber at Light of Reason gives some context to the anti-smoking lobby, and Ampersand at Alas, A Blog is basically unconcerned about it all.

And last, although never ever least, Steve at Little Tiny Lies is desperately seeking new reading material. Steve, why don't you start here? :D Failing that, I can recommend Stephanie Laurens.

Now, I'm going to go call my doctor.

UPDATE: For all the good info on Tapped, check out Henry Hanks.

Meet the bridesman

Should men be brides"maids"? Should women be grooms"men"?

Fox has an interesting article on the trend, which makes some people nervous (not the article, the trend). I personally have no difficulties with it, as long as both bride and groom are comfortable. The couple should discuss it in private before anyone is asked, though, and even if the one who wants the opposite gender attendant thinks it's silly that it matters, he or she shouldn't push it if their partner is uncomfortable. OTOH, I don't think the comfort of parents and various others at the wedding is an issue.

And then that leads to my next question: What about close friendships with the opposite gender after marriage? There are those who say that men and women can't be close friends without some level of sexual tension involved, which could spike and create trouble in a marriage especially if the friend is single or the time together doesn't often include the spouse. It's even more of a problem if the marriage is in trouble.

Not being married, I don't know that I can answer this definitively. My feeling is that as long as the friendship is above board, that the spouse knows about all the meetings and knows the friend herself/himself, that it's not a problem. I think keeping marriage vows is something that requires conscious monitoring anyway, not that most people are slavering sex crazed idiots but our state of mind and susceptibility to temptation ebbs and flows like everything else in life. And if you're close friends with someone, you already have emotional intimacy. But if both partners in the marriage are committed and working hard to make it as a couple, opposite sex friends shouldn't be the deal breaker. Of course, the friend should also put the friendship first and not allow things to slide off into dangerous territory either.

So those are my thoughts this early (for me) Monday morning, when I'm getting a headache for, oh, the 20th day in a row. What are your thoughts on opposite sex friends?

[Link via jimmy]

Because I know you worry

I finally got my keys yesterday, when I went to the post office to pick up my mail. This is a good thing. You can stop worrying now.

Creative statistics

AC Douglas has the scoop on the latest on second hand smoke, the conclusion being that it isn't the demon it's portrayed to be. Excellent, worth reading both for the info on second hand smoke (or Environmental Tobacco Smoke) and for the discussion of how the EPA played fast and loose with their statistics to get the answer they wanted.

I tend to be a purist in a lot of ways, at times to my detriment, but it often means I go about with a very pollyanna idealism about how things are done. If I'm told in stats class that you never muck about with your data to get a positive effect when the question with the right answer isn't the original point of the study, then I expect that my professors and the academics out there in the real world are going to ethically do just that. Imagine my disillusionment when a stats professor joked about having to just about twist his data into a pretzel to get a positive effect (so he could get a publication out of it). It's pretty sad that we can't trust leaders, the government, the academic elite, but they - like journalists, like everyone - have to prove their trustworthiness before we can trust them. And the EPA has not stood up well to that test.

[Link via Instapundit]

When balance is lying

Nat Hentoff has an excellent piece in Village Voice about the ongoing abuse of journalists in Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and the continued defense of Mugabe by both NYC councilman Charles Barron and, indirectly, the American media.

Barron has long proven himself to be nothing more than a racial opportunist, a man lacking anything resembling a moral. Hentoff's portrayal of him is damning. But the portrayal of the American media by a Zimbabwean journalist is not much less so:

Charged with "abusing journalistic privilege" under Zimbabwe's fierce censorship laws, [Iden] Wetherell [editor of the Zimbabwe Independent] has been arrested, threatened, and otherwise harassed—but not intimidated. In the World Press Review article, Wetherell spoke of the "balancing" of stories about Mugabe in some of the American media:

"Stories start off by saying, 'Whilst President Mugabe is demonized as a tyrant, he is a hero to many.' That sort of approach fails to explain anything—that more than 1 million Zimbabweans voted against him in the 2002 presidential elections. It obscures the fact that it is Zimbabweans who are saying this man is a tyrant, not just the West, that the allegations of misuse of power, of misallocation of funds, come from well-documented sources within Zimbabwe. To situate him as 'under fire' from forces in Washington mistells the reality that he is being widely criticized as abusive within Zimbabwe itself."

It's the old "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" syndrome. It is the soft racism of refusing to criticize a black man (unless he's an American conservative) or an African country. And the American media is thus complicit in the continuation of Mugabe's depredations on their own colleagues. The plaints of "objectivity" and "balance" are faint cries of hypocrisy when we see the vociferous condemnation of the Supreme Court in the 2000 election, of Trent Lott and Rick Santorum, of Enron and any number of other businesses. I'm not saying criticism wasn't warranted in many of those instances. I'm saying that it's telling where criticism is leveled while retaining the mask of "objectivity", and where criticism is withheld or tempered for the sake of "balance".

(See also this column by Dave Kopel on the media's coverage of Zimbabwe: Dailies ignoring Zimbabwe crisis.)

Parents more dangerous than pedophiles

Are we watching pedophilia push its way into the mainstream as a legitimate behavior? You'd think so, after reading this article in Canada's National Post:

Although sex offenders who prey on children are demonized by society, psychiatrists who treat them say up to 3% of Canadians are sexually drawn to children.

The point here is about the way it's written - "Although" they're "demonized", those "sexually drawn" to children make up 3% of Canadians. The "sexually drawn" and "psychiatrists" give the impression that it's a behavior outside the ability of the person to control - thus born in. And apparently because 3% of Canadians are thus "drawn", it's wrong to "demonize" them. I want to know where the 3% figure came from. I want to know who those psychiatrists are. And I want to know why the percent of people who do a behavior makes a difference in whether I should "demonize" it. I think there are a lot of people - probably more than 3% - who are "drawn" to alcohol and have a higher than average likelihood of abusing it. That doesn't mean I shouldn't or won't "demonize" people who drive drunk or who damage their families through their alcoholism.

However, most of these pedophiles do not act on their sexual fantasies.

Whew, well, that makes it okay. Sorry I got all testy! They don't act on it so that's okay. I won't condemn sexual attraction to children as long as they don't act on it.

Those who do mostly engage in exhibitionism, masturbation or gentle fondling of the child.

GENTLE FONDLING?! Oh, yeah, THAT makes it okay. The way this is worded clearly tries to make it seem that these behaviors aren't so bad. I mean, so what if Big John shows his weewee to little Tommy or Suzy? It's healthy for children to be comfortable with nudity. So what if Big John keeps photos of innocent children around and gets off with them? And, you know, caressing and touching a child can only make him feel more loved and cherished, giving him a stronger sense of self-esteem and a healthy sense of his emerging sexuality. And it's gentle, soft, even... kind. What's wrong with that?

(I've actually seen that latter argument made by someone in NAMBLA.)

"Fortunately, the individuals who have pedophilia ... that are likely to act out and seriously harm a child are very rare," said John Bradford, clinical director of forensic psychiatry and the sexual behaviours clinic at the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

Define "seriously harm". It is fortunate that not all pedophiles actually "act out". But I'd say more than a few "harm a child". The article tells us what the writer and the good doctor consider "harming" though:

Dr. Bradford published a study several years ago in the American Journal of Psychiatry that found only 28 patients in a database of 2,800 known pedophiles in Canada had committed acts of sexually motivated homicide or attempted homicide over a 20-year period.

There you go. A child isn't "seriously harmed" until the pedophile tries or succeeds in killing him. A little "gentle fondling" can't be termed "serious harm". Of course not.

Have I mentioned here before that statistically speaking an illegal behavior is often done many times before the offender is caught? The less serious the crime, usually the more frequently it's been done before apprehension. A man who has served two prison terms for aggravated rape probably committed 10 or more in his career to do time for two. So, just as a statistical exercise, how many times do you think a pedophile has "gently fondled" a child in the process of escalating to murder? But don't worry - that doesn't harm a child.

"In fact, in statistical terms, if you look at children that are killed, a parent is more likely to kill a child than a pedophile is going to kill a child," said Dr. Bradford, who has assessed such notorious sexual offenders as Paul Bernardo.

What was I thinking? Of course parents are more dangerous to children that pedophiles! Oh my goodness. I can't believe my own blindness. Let's take all children out of their homes and put them in daycares run by pedophiles. They'll be much safer. Whew. I'm glad I thought of this. Just think too of all the well-adjusted children we'll have after their self-esteem has been bolstered through repeated "gentle fondling".

Although the cause of pedophilia is unknown, studies show about 35% of pedophiles were sexually molested as children.

I'm very very sorry this is true. I wonder if that molestation was "gentle fondling" or if all 35% were nearly murdered?

Brain scans indicate sexually sadistic people often have some damage to the right temporal area of the brain. These injuries are frequently caused by oxygen deficits around the time of childbirth.

I'm unmoved by this until I see context. What percentage of the general population have damage to the right temporal area and are not sexual sadists? What percentage of sexual sadists have this damage vs the number who do not? Why should we connect the two? It's possible that the majority of sexual sadists also drive red cars, but that doesn't mean everyone with a red car is a sexual sadist - it could be completely unrelated, and it could be that the cause of the sadism also leans them toward red cars. Besides, when did sexual sadism become conflated with pedophilia? I don't see the connection. It's possible that the two run together at times - some pedophiles may also be sexual sadists - but that's no reason to use data on sexual sadists as evidence that pedophiles are biologically determined. So why make that connection?

"I'm convinced there's a biological component to it," Dr. Bradford said.

There we go! The good doctor is convinced it's true. No solid data, mind, but he's convinced so we'll trot out all sorts of unrelated, unexplained data and build a case. Hmmm. Yes, that's good science. Don't you agree?

All child molesters are at risk of re-offending without treatment, experts say. But some are more dangerous than others.

Well, bully for you for figuring this out. Everyone is "at risk" of repeating behavior that is pleasurable when there is nothing happening to make the pain of doing the behavior greater than the pleasure. Actually pedophiles have one of the very highest rates of reoffending even with treatment. But, wait - it's only "gentle fondling". Sorry, my bad, not a problem.

Among those who are not treated, those at lowest risk are family members who prey on their own children or relatives, about 6% of whom re-offend after eight years. Strangers who molest little girls are at higher risk -- about 13% re-offend after eight years. The most dangerous -- although more rare -- are bisexual pedophiles who molest children of both genders. In some studies, up to 40% of these people re-offend.

Nice numbers there, devoid of context. Why would family members be less likely to reoffend? Could it be that their crimes were partly of opportunity, and after the molested child is no longer available they don't have the same access to another child? Seems relevant to me. The other numbers are just as isolated from context. What is the overlap? Are the 6% of family pedophiles who re-offend a part of the bisexual pedophiles? And could it be that the number of re-offending family pedophiles is low as well because they got better at hiding it? Standing alone those numbers are scary; with context I think they'd be more so.

Although the end results -- sexual assault and murder -- may be the same, the killers' motivations are often quite different.

Suddenly we're back to the killers. This article is careening wildly through the topic, not building any kind of coherent case. Irresponsible journalism, unquestionably. A little transition here would be good. But then remember - "seriously harm" means kill or attempt to kill. So I guess we're back to the pedophiles who actually harm children. "Gentle fondling" doesn't count.

"There are some individuals who are quite rare who are motivated by the violent aspects of sex, and that therefore drives them," Dr. Bradford said.

Yes. Both pedophiles and non-pedophiles - those "sexual sadists" again. Is this the temporal-lobe-damaged crowd?

For example, Joseph Fredericks, a violent repeat offender, kidnapped an 11-year-old boy from a Brampton, Ont., shopping mall in 1988. Over the next 24 hours he tortured and raped the boy, then choked him unconscious and stabbed him to death. Fredericks, a homosexual predator, was motivated by sadism and the fear he caused.

Hmm. Just an example of "serious harm". Note that Fredericks is identified as a "homosexual predator", not as a pedophile specifically. While I have religious issues with homosexuality, I don't think the majority of homosexual males are attracted to children. It's a separate, sometimes overlapping, thing. Our writer needs to be a little more careful with his characterizations.

By contrast, other sexual offenders kill their young victims to avoid being identified and caught.

Nothing to argue with there.

One of the most hotly debated topics in correctional services is how to rehabilitate pedophiles. Dr. Bradford said the Canadian penal system does a much better job at treating pedophiles than other countries, notably the United States. However, some provincial justice systems do a much poorer job than others, he said.

It's hotly debated because nothing really seems to work. We have no context here either, though, for comparing the Canadian system with the US system, just that Dr. Bradford thinks the US doesn't do as well as he does. Hmm.

One of the most successful treatments is anti-testosterone drug therapy -- sometimes called "chemical castration" -- that can substantially reduce sexual urges. Studies show treated patients are less likely to molest children than the general population. Therapists also use anti-depressants such as Prozac and Zoloft, which reduce the sex drive.

I say, whatever works. If chemical castration doesn't do it, how about the real thing? We could have a new Eunuch Choir of Former Pedophiles.

However, once out of prison, convicted pedophiles are not obliged to continue such treatments.

That's an issue for any number of problems that are aided by chemical moderation - certain mental illnesses come to mind too. This is just fact.

In the United States, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Oregon and Wisconsin have chemical castration laws on the books.

I thought the US didn't do well in this? Or is the list just for the sake of noting how few US states have such laws? What about Canada, what percentage of their country has them? Again, zero context here.

I can't decide how much of the problems in this article are due to bias on the part of the writer, just sloppy journalism on his part, or deliberate leading by the good doctor. Most likely a combination of the three. But the net result is a disgustingly conciliatory attitude about pedophiles that diminishes the harm they do to children. Any kind of touching a child with sexual intent is harmful. The degree of harm varies with the degree of touching and the persistence of it, as well as the child's ability to understand what is happening.

Repeated efforts have been made to normalize sexual activity with children, as well as adult-teen sexual activity (children 12-17). Certainly there are precedents of a sort - in today's society, young people in their early teens can marry with their parents' consent. One of my classmates married at 13, but her husband was also one of our classmates, 14 when they married. So it happens. Loretta Lynn married at 12 to a man in his 20s. I'd say that was child abuse, but that's just me. She stayed married to him. But that's a very different thing from sexual contact with pre-pubescent children, and from sexual contact between an adult and a pubescent child or teenager where the adult is using force, coercion or seduction to take advantage of a vulnerable person. That behavior is unequivocally evil. And articles like this one do nothing to give an objective view of the case. It's at best bad journalism, at worst an apologia for pedophilia.

[Thanks to Lane at Blog from the Core for the link; he has a good post on it too.]

explain this to me...

I signed up for Blogshares when it first started. I bought a bunch of shares of this and that blog. I didn't go over there for several weeks because, quite frankly, seeing my nieces, sleeping through sickness and getting school work done seemed more important. Tonight I jumped over there just to see what was going on, and...

All the Blogshares I bought are gone! What happened? I apparently own 20 shares of some stupid idiot website that I'd never heard of before, and ALL OF THE ONES I BOUGHT ARE GONE! Explain that to me! If this is how the real world works, it's no wonder my real stocks lost 40% of their value in the last 18 months.

I am genuinely puzzled by this. What's going on?

You go, girl!

As the wedding festivities for the arranged marriage were getting underway, bride Nisha Sharma's groom and his family came to her father demanding $25,000 in rupees in additional dowry. A widespread but illegal custom, dowries in arranged marriages in India are common, usually from the bride's family to the groom and his family. Sharma's father had already given the groom quite a bit, and Sharma said enough is enough. She called the police and had her groom arrested.

She's now a media sensation in India. I say, you go, girl!

While the whole issue of arranged marriages makes me itch, I recognize that it's a custom in a lot of places. Many people have forged successful and happy marriages that began that way. But in India dowries have become an especially touchy issue because thousands of women are killed yearly by their husband's family because the bride price was too low and they want to find a woman who can bring more. This from the article on Sharma:

According to government statistics, husbands and in-laws angry over small dowry payments killed nearly 7,000 women in 2001.

I hope Sharma's rebellion cracks the hold the dowry system has on some communities. Arranged marriages and dowries may continue, but her experience may show other women and their families that they're not dooming a woman to spinsterhood by rejecting outrageous demands.

Bond revoked

The $1 million bond for two men arrested for killing WKU student Katie Autry was revoked yesterday. Lucas Goodrum and Stephen Soules will remain behind bars until their trial, unless their attorneys succeed in convincing the court to change its ruling.

I mentioned Katie's murder as a part of my earlier post on motive. I'll get back to that discussion tomorrow. The reason that the case has such an interest for me - besides just academic interest - is that my niece, who just completed her freshman year at WKU, was a friend of Katie's. I didn't mention it before because my sister asked me not to; she gave me permission after Goodrum and Soules were arrested.

Katie and my niece went to the gym together several times a week for a good part of the spring semester, went shopping together, hung out in each other's rooms. My niece had spent the night in Katie's room - the room where she died. Because she had spent most of her time with her boyfriend in recent weeks, my niece didn't know Katie had briefly worked as a stripper, and hadn't spent time with her for a few weeks before her death. But part of my time in Kentucky was spent talking about Katie with my niece, and discussing the crime. It brings it home when a murder affects someone in your family. And knowing Katie through my niece's eyes reminded me yet again that all we know of most victims is what the media tells us - and the media operates with its own frames, imperatives and biases, even with the best of intentions to be fair. She definitely made a series of very bad choices, and put herself in situations that made her victimization easier. But those choices were not the whole of who Katie was, and it's sad to see her relegated to either faceless victim status or, as one television station put it, "The Stripper Case."

My prayers go out to Katie's foster parents and her younger sister. Katie was buried in her cheerleading outfit from high school. She was 18 years old, a petite slender blonde who came to college nine months ago with a small town innocence. And now she's dead in a most horrific way. If Goodrum was her killer, I hope he goes to the chair.

Check the sources

Eugene Volokh is so good at explaining complex issues clearly and simply. In this post he tracks down the origin of a claim by Masters & Johnson that gay males have a median of 250 sex partners, which is outrageously higher than any other group. It turns out that the study M&J based their numbers on was not a representative sample - asking a gay male at a bathhouse in San Francisco in the early 1970s how many sex partners he has had is not going to get you an "average" answer. M&J for whatever reason chose not to make this lack in their source data clear - thus leaving open the opportunity for the figures, quoted in a college textbook, to be understood as a general truth.

My interest in the post is not the issue of gay males and their sex partners, but rather the importance of knowing where the numbers come from before giving any report credence - especially, again, if it makes outrageous claims. Sometimes the studies are done meticulously, in a carefully neutral way, and in those instances the data are at least clean. The worst you can say in that instance is the study would need to be replicated a few times to be sure of the findings. But Volokh's post tracks how easily bad data can get into the mainstream of public consciousness as truth.

I wish students had to take courses on understanding the use of statistics in popular media and how important it is to know the research method used, rather than just a grindingly hard and usually boring class in how to do multiple regressions. I personally get severe hives even thinking about doing statistical manipulations, although I've taken four graduate courses in it (I have Teflon brain for stats), but a lot of what we need to question isn't so much the math as the method - and research methods aren't as whimper-making as stats. It would be rather like learning how to use Word without having to know how to code it. It could be interesting, fun and very relevant to understanding the world around us. I'll be holding my breath until something that reasonable happens, though.

More on the fish

Remember that fish story both Bigwig and I blogged about? Well, here's a little more info on the man behind it, Dr. Ransom Myers, which shows that maybe, jussssttttt maybe he has a) an agenda and b) a full intent to sway public opinion the way he thinks it ought to go.

First, the agenda:

Myers spent 13 years with DFO [the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans], then quit in a fury. He says he was dismayed with the department's handling of the cod collapse in the 1990s. "The collapse was all blamed on the environment, on the seals, on the foreigners, when it was primarily Canadians," Myers recalls. "I saw that as the big lie, blaming it on anything but ourselves."

Myers moved to Dalhousie University as Killam chair of ocean studies in 1997 and soon started publishing scientific papers on the demise and mismanagement of the cod stocks.

He and colleagues familiar with DFO's inner working accused the department of having "suppressed data" on the state of the cod fishery. They caused such a huge controversy and laid such serious charges that senior DFO officials threatened to sue Myers for libel.

Now, the intent to sway:

Myers and his colleagues spent weeks preparing for this week's splash. They hired video crews to get underwater footage and tape of Myers and his co-author Boris Worm strolling by the sea. Then, they made sure television reporters knew how to get hold of the videos for their newscasts.

They ran through mock interviews with media advisors at U.S.-based SeaWeb, a group dedicated to raising awareness of the life -- or lack thereof -- in the world's oceans. SeaWeb's Nancy Baron spent the week working the phones and the Internet, tipping reporters to Myers' paper -- and offering early, embargoed copies of the study -- to maximize Myers' media exposure.

Does that mean that Myers' study isn't important? Not at all. What it does say is that his intent is not solely pure science, but proving his theories. And it also says that the Washington Post took their bait hook, line and sinker. It's a reminder to us all - and should have been to the Post - that any time a study makes some shocking claim it's a very good idea to dig behind the interpreted data to the agenda of the scientist and the meaning of the raw data as compared to other studies.

Time for serious drugs

Remember how sick I was last week? Well, I'm not all better yet. In fact, I got all better except for my right ear and sinuses - still yuckity. Now things seem to be regressing, I feel a bit light-headed and want nothing so much as to curl up in bed for three days. Fortunately it's the weekend. I think I need antibiotics. It would help if I had a primary care doctor to go to, I suppose, but I never did find a new one after I decided not to go to the previous one again. Why, you ask? Well, I'm all for alternative medicine, but when she recommended I use magnets to take down the swelling in my left knee, I decided that was a little too alternative.

I haven't been to the emergency room yet this year. I was there twice last year and three times the year before that. I owe them at least one visit this year. Maybe this weekend will be it.

A tribute to a remarkable lady

Mike at Cold Fury has a lovely tribute to June Carter Cash, who died yesterday at 73. She and Johnny Cash are icons in American music, and deserve every accolade. June and her family, The Carters, brought the music of a people to the entire world in a way that emphasized its beauty and pathos without trivializing or being disrespectful of its roots. They were country music, and the very best of it.

I can't think of June Carter Cash and Johnny Cash without remembering my own ditsy-ness about one of their songs, "Jackson". The song opens with these lyrics:

We got married in a fever hotter than a pepper sprout We've been talkin' bout Jackson ever since the fire went out

I'm going to Jackson...

Well, I was quite young when I first heard the song, which is my excuse. For the longest time, I thought the song was saying that they got married while there was a sickness going around - you know, like scarlet fever - and they'd been thinking about going to Jackson since the epidemic had abated. Well, it made sense to me at the time! What did I know about other kinds of fever? I confess that I didn't listen to the rest of the lyrics, so I wasn't picking up any other clues. I did find it curious that they'd gotten married while everyone was so sick, but who am I to question true love.

And yes, I was an adult before I ever really listened to the lyrics and corrected my original impression. I never said I was the sharpest knife in the drawer.

This morning

I tuned in to listen to C-Span to hear Glenn Reynolds, which was fun. He was on Washington Journal, this morning on the topic of - at least in part - blogging. I was amazed at the lack of knowledge the hosts showed, not because they have a responsibility to know all about blogs, but because their lack of preparedness made the show less than representative or compelling. A little reading up on blogs would have helped a lot. Glenn, of course, did quite well although they didn't ask him much that illuminated the blog phenomenon. He mostly did that himself by adding commentary after answering their questions. I was delighted to hear Scott Ott later; he has a great voice, very clear and easy on the ear. They popped Scrappleface up on the screen for a few seconds, and Scott got a well-deserved plug. Several other bloggers - some quite odd - also called in, and as I was leaving for work Josh Claybourn was talking on the show.

I did send in an email about media bias watching in the blogs, mentioning Media Minded and Rhetorica as well as my own site, but it didn't make it into their show. Because I specifically mentioned my post on fisheries as an example of catching media spin, I linked to Bigwig's post on the fisheries below mine - just in case it did show up online. However, since a lot of you probably won't scroll down to look at the post again, let me link Bigwig here again. His post on the fisheries deals more with the study itself, and is really really good. (Do you think four separate links to the same post indicates just how much I want you to go read it?)

This morning I'm working on a Top Secret Project that may result in my heading off to Radford, VA, sometime in early fall. That would land me within easy driving distance of Meryl, Fred, Bryan, MM & Page, and Mike the Music Man himself. It could fall through, but if something comes of it I'll let you know.

Be back later with more bloggish goodness.

Women!

Recently Steven Den Beste admitted he doesn't understand women. He pointed to a photo that does a decent job of explaining the differences, and Mrs. du Toit gets down to the 0s and 1s with a hierarchical vs relational explanation. Even Jim Bowen gets in the game, cheered on by Dodd. But I must say that Dave Barry's explanation via a quite graphic illustration is the best by far.

one evening when they're driving home, a thought occurs to Martha, and, without really thinking, she says it aloud: "Do you realize that, as of tonight, we've been seeing each other for exactly six months?"

And then, there is silence in the car.

To Martha, it seems like a very loud silence. She thinks to herself: I wonder if it bothers him that I said that. Maybe he's been feeling confined by our relationship; maybe he thinks I'm trying to push him into some kind of obligation that he doesn't want, or isn't sure of.

And Fred is thinking: Gosh. Six months.

And Martha is thinking: But, hey, I'm not so sure I want this kind of relationship either. Sometimes I wish I had a little more space, so I'd have time to think about whether I really want us to keep going the way we are, moving steadily towards, I mean, where are we going? Are we just going to keep seeing each other at this level of intimacy? Are we heading toward marriage? Toward children? Toward a lifetime together? Am I ready for that level of commitment? Do I really even know this person?

And Fred is thinking: ...so that means it was...let's see...February when we started going out, which was right after I had the car at the dealer's, which means...lemme check the odometer...Whoa! I am way overdue for an oil change here.

This still cracks me up even though I've read it many times. As they say, read it all. It's scarily true.

Amen

John Hawkins has