August 27, 2004
Links make a difference

Today I've spent most of my time reading dissertation abstracts to determine which dissertations I need to review for the literature review of my dissertation prospectus. Despite how dreary sounding that is, it's actually been quite fascinating, if slow going at times. And just now I came across one of a dissertation by Stanley Ketterer that I thought all of you would find interesting - it says that the more links you have an online story, the more engaged the reader will be:

Specifically, the study looked at the effects of hypertext links, story type and personality variables on readers' perceptions of crime stories in online newspapers. Crime stories were used because readers are interested in them, the media covers them extensively, and critics have charged that they often lack context. Prototypes of an online publications were used that included four types of crime stories and zero, 2 or 4 links. Half the crime stories were episodic, i.e. about a specific incident, and half were thematic, i.e. about an issue. Participants' online behavior was tracked electronically and psychographic measures were derived from a questionnaire. The results show participants who had links spent more time reading and were better informed than those who did not have links. The more links that were provided, the more links were noticed and used. The kind of link was also important. Participants had more knowledge of and liked background, chart and human interest story. They read and clicked on more links with episodic stories, but had more knowledge of thematic stories and their links.

Some of that seems logical to the point of doh!, but Big Media hasn't gotten the point yet. You don't see heavily linked pieces on their sites like you do on blogs. I understand the point of keeping people on your site, but they don't even provide internal links. What they don't understand, and this research shows, is that readers learn more, absorb their information more, when they're pulled into the issue with multiple resources at their fingertips. It makes the whole experience more interesting. And, if you're engrossed, you're more likely to read the entire thing. You're also more likely to see that publication as engaging, which means you'll come back more. Additionally, the abstract points out that the more links there were, the more links people used. That means they came back to the original article and read more. It kept their interest. It kept them on the page, so they're seeing the advertising longer - if that's the point, which it seems to be for the online media, given that they'd have articles bristling with links (just like a blog!) if their true goal was imparting information and understanding.

The abstract database that this came from is restricted to registered Rutgers students, but I gave you the bulk of it. For further reference, the bibliographic cite is in MORE.

UPDATE: Found the full abstract here. Just do a "find" search on the page, it's about a 10th of the way down (very long page). Dr. Ketterer is apparently now on the faculty of the Mass Communications Department in the Graduate College of Oklahoma State University. One wonders what he thinks of blogs? Interestingly enough, one of his areas of specialty is media credibility. He has an extensive journalism background.

MORE...
Posted by susanna at 03:14 PM | Comments (0) | Trackback (1)
The left gets it right about protests

The Village Voice gets it right about the motives, intent and likely actual result of the protestors amassing in NYC to cause trouble for the Republican Convention:

Politics is about communication. If you leave questions of what you are communicating—to the cops, to the watching public—entirely up in the air, you are not really doing politics at all.

The willful denial of this fact does not infect only 19-year-olds. Ed Hedemann has been working for peace ever since he refused induction into the military in 1969. His group, the War Resisters League, has planned its action with exquisite care, and with a strategic dignity: Figures dressed in white to represent mourning will gather at the World Trade Center site; marching across the city as close to Madison Square Garden as practicable, they will hold a " 'die-in,' a way to graphically represent all those who have been killed by the government's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." But even an old hand like Hedemann simply turns off his brain when asked about a fundamental problem in political communications: that even the most passive protesters, when arrested, are often perceived by the public—as they were in Chicago in 1968—as bringers of anarchy, and end up hurting the causes they profess to help.

The article, using as a framing tool a comparison of the 1968 Democrat convention in Chicago that nominated Hubert Humphrey with the 2004 Republican convention starting next week, is unabashedly anti-Bush. But reporter Rick Perlstein does an excellent job analyzing the protest mentality in the midst of an obvious plea that they not do what they're threatening to do. He even says of the protestors' hero, Martin Luther King Jr., "It would have taken all of King's powers of Christian love, I think, not to laugh in these people's faces." The article is so full of references to actual protestors that it's difficult to excerpt specific points without having to include paragraphs explaining who people are. But I think it's worth your time to read to understand the situation from their perspective.

Perlstein uses a number of leftist tropes to make his point: cops as evil beasts slavering to beat on protestors or anyone who tramples their egos; the "ugliness of the Bush regime"; the cattle-like fear of the average citizenry that sees just protests against an injust world as "anarchy" just because those slavering cop-beasts have to get involved. And yet his point is a good one, if you can paw through the verbal slime to get to it: You have to send a clear message to your targeted audience in a way they will hear it, not engage in self-indulgent street-plays for your own sense of self-aggrandizement and piety. Fortunately, I doubt any of his targeted audience will hear his voice of reason, and his apt uncovering of the protestors as arrogant and self-absorbed rings true. Scary that even the more reasoned on the left see the nuttiness, isn't it? I thought this passage was amusing and illustrative:

The site displays the kind of language whose vagueness might get hapless souls like Valentine put on 24-hour surveillance. It sounds innocent to write, "We must defend ourselves against possible attack like family and keep our spirits high." To Valentine, that means "just looking out for each other and taking care for each other." I point out that it might be interpreted differently by police intelligence—and that the importance of protesters' intentions not being misconstrued by paranoid cops is one of the reasons, as morally compromising as it might seem, to consult with authorities before a demonstration. She responds with self-satisfied cleverness: "We should not have to ask permission from the very people we're trying to protest."

One of the most telling aspects of the piece, however, is the opening. I'll just let Perlstein tell it, with a little help from me in the form of bolding:

One of the most exhilarating moments in Lewis Koch's life came in the summer of 1968. He was a producer for NBC News, based in Chicago, specializing in the anti-war movement—of which he was a sympathizer. Now, at the Democratic National Convention, he was an actor in what he thought was one of its glorious episodes. Cops were beating kids without provocation, and with the footage he was putting on the air, Middle America might finally realize that justice rested more with those protesting the war than those so violently defending it.

"I remember my self-satisfaction," Koch recalls, "and saying to myself, 'Oh, did you do a terrific job!' "

Then came the most traumatic moment in Lewis Koch's life.

"The phones would ring off the hook. People were furious. . . . Nothing I had intended had gone through. Actually what they saw were clear pictures of these young kids rioting. Chaos in their city." Next thing he knew, Richard Nixon had swept to presidential victory on the wings of a commercial proclaiming—above those selfsame pictures—that "the first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence."

Now, remind me again about journalistic objectivity, about "no agendas", about fairness, etc.? About how journalists operate in this bias-free zone where they transcend their humanness and bring no personal frames or intent to their coverage? Thank you.

UPDATE: Edited for accuracy, see comments for details.

MORE...
Posted by susanna at 08:42 AM | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)
August 25, 2004
Just curious...

While clicking around the blogosphere, I came across this collection of drivel from Kurt Vonnegut. It's all good, at least for a laugh, but this little section caught my attention and made me think (shocking, I know):

In case you haven't noticed, we are now almost as feared and hated all over the world as the Nazis were.

That's Vonnegut talking. The "we" he refers to is not, of course, him, but the United States. And yes, he's invoking Hitler, which immediately empties his argument of any validity. But on the other hand... it led me to a curious consideration.

Repeatedly the left screams about how the US is worse than Hitler, that the world hates us more than the Nazis, etc ad nauseum, with the apparent goal of waking us (the "us" here meaning "brain dead moderates or frothing right wingers in the US") up to the horror of our diminished position in certain segments of the world.

But... is a comparison to Hitler actually a negative in those parts of the world?

MORE...
Posted by susanna at 09:52 AM | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)
So happy I'm gone

If you want to see more of NJ politics on the ground, don't just follow Jim McGreevey's dirty trail - check out Jersey City:

Tension around the November election for the unexpired term of the late Mayor Glenn D. Cunningham ratcheted up several notches yesterday when acting Mayor L. Harvey Smith, a candidate in the election, placed another candidate, city Police Chief Ronald Buonocore, on unpaid leave.

In response, Buonocore issued a statement through spokesman Dave Vermillion challenging Smith and another candidate, state Assemblyman Louis Manzo, to also leave office during the campaign.

Fascinating. As you know, I worked for JCPD for over three years, the last year with Buonocore as chief. I know the majority of these players, if not personally then by name and reputation. All I can say is... I'm so happy I'm gone.

If you're interested in my blathering about Jersey City politics, feel free to read on. If not, I won't inflict it on you.

MORE...
Posted by susanna at 08:32 AM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
August 24, 2004
Lame, lame, lame

I've always liked the younger Bush set - the twins Jenna and Barbara. They seem like normal young ladies who want to get on with their life and aren't particularly interested in partaking of the glitz and glamor of "My Dad is President". Of course, when they learned to talk, they could have said, "My Granddad is Vice President", and when they were moving from child to adolescent, they could say, "My Granddad is President". And there wasn't much of a gap there before they could say, "My Dad is Governor" and then, well, you know. So I'm sure there's not much new and exciting about it all, and plenty annoying when it means your every teenage and college piccadillo is witnessed by grim security or Secret Service agents, and you're dogged by a media drooling after something to hurt your father with. So I'm sympathetic, and admiring of their independence.

I also thought it was classy of the President and Mrs. Bush to leave the extent of their daughters' participation in the campaign up to the girls, and likewise a loving gesture on the twins' part to put themselves in front of the runaway media train to support their dad. That's why I'm really really sorry the campaign has done them no favors in this, their first email for the campaign. I'll paste it here in just a second, but first I want to say this:

Either it was written by a particularly vacuous friend of the Bush girls, or it was written by a Republican marketing type who wouldn't know how to talk to the under 25s if his career depended on it. Which in this case, it may. Here we go (picture was embedded in the email too):

JenandBarb-photo.jpg

Dear Susanna,

We're sure that you have no doubt who we'll be voting for in November. But you should also know that we would be voting for our Dad in this election even if he had not raised us, loved us, tutored us, coached us, and even listened to a few excuses from us for late curfews. We have been privileged to know our President personally and we know he is the right person to lead our country - especially when there are so many important issues at stake.

Our Dad has qualities that are needed in a good President - loyalty, humor (embarrassing as it sometimes may be), compassion, and, most importantly, integrity. We're not the only ones who see it. In fact, our friends - from varying political backgrounds - are supporting our Dad in November. Not only because of his decisions to liberate the women of Afghanistan or bring freedom to the people of Iraq, but because during the last ten years they met a man whose title was Governor or President, but who was always happy to be known as "our Dad." He made everyone feel welcome and comfortable in our house (except for the occasional boyfriend) and our friends got to know him as a really good guy.

We know that when you get to know his record as President, you too will feel compelled to participate in this year's election - and hopefully get involved in the campaign, too. We know it can be hard to find time to think about politics. We just graduated from college and are perfectly aware that schoolwork, parties, and extra-curricular activities keep students busy, away from campaigns and voting booths. In the last election, less than half of 18- to 24-year-olds were registered to vote, and only 32% of them actually did vote. Sadly, many Americans our age did not take advantage of their right to vote.

We are asking you to get involved with this campaign not only because it is the most critical election of our lifetime, but also because we have the ability to positively change our future. Please encourage your friends to sign up on the campaign's web site (www.GeorgeWBush.com) and register to vote online. At the web site you'll also find a lot of information about how to get involved in our Dad's re-election campaign. It's an easy process, and it's the best way to have a say in this year's election.

Thanks for taking a few minutes to think about some big issues. This is a really important election, and we know that with your help our Dad will win in November.

This email manages to competely insult the 25 and under crowd. First, it's written in a I'm-pretending-to-be-a-young-thing! (giggle) tone. You sense that it fully expected the response to be, "Um, like, yeah! Cool! Like, rad! I'll vote for their dad! Heh! Did you hear? I rhymed!" Any marginally news-conscious 25-and-under is going to know enough about politics to be put off by that tone. And was it just the women in Afghanistan that were "liberated", or was it maybe the whole population excepting terrorists? It's bad enough that the girls are pictured like two little sweet things - eye candy - and not as even marginally serious young women. Why add insult to injury?

This is a failed opportunity. There are a lot of things that the Bush campaign could address that would be legitimate concerns for the Jenna-Barb age group. Students are always interested in student loans, in college tuition costs, in crime on campus. Students and graduates are extremely concerned about the job market, what they can expect to earn and whether they can even find a job on finishing school. And whether or not they actually spend much time learning the reality of the situation in Iraq, you can bet they've heard plenty and it's not been favorable to Bush. To dismiss the entire war as it has been in this email is, not to put it lightly, stupid. Breathtakingly so, actually, since it's only addressed as an opening phrase in a sentence mainly about how the President is "also 'our Dad'"! How vacuous is that? Hey, he may be out freeing countries when he's at work, but what should be most important to you is that he's our Dad! I know they're proud of him, with good reason. But their pride in him is no reason for anyone else to vote for him. Why not give the young voters something to really think about? Maybe inane campaign approaches like this is one reason so many young people don't vote. You don't make the time to vote unless you feel there's an issue important enough to make the effort, even if that issue is that you feel responsible to participate in our democratic process. No one will vote for President Bush because he's Jenna and Barbara's cool Dad!

If this is an example of the finest Republican minds reaching out to the youth of America, they'd be better off to shoot their computers now before they shoot themselves in the foot again. They'll get more votes just keeping their condescension to themselves.

UPDATE: The Associated Press has a brief article about the Bush twins' email, but it gives none of the interesting detail you see right here!

Posted by susanna at 03:48 PM | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)
Question to self:

You made and ate Cajun 15-Bean Soup just before going to teach your class tonight.

What were you thinking??

Tasty, though.

Posted by susanna at 02:21 PM | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)
NJ politics as usual, with a little headline spin

If you want to see the guts of politics at work, just read this article. Anyone who harbors the tiniest thought that McGreevey isn't doing everything he can to hold on to his political future, that should deep-six it. There's no logical reason for McGreevey to hang on to November except to keep some measure of his power on the NJ Dem playing field. And I'm not saying that the other Dems - or the Republicans either - are all saintly in this. But McGreevey is not even the cleanest in a pile of dirty politics.

As a side note, it's interesting that the entire article is about the machinations in the NJ Dem party, with the Republicans mentioned only twice, in passing, half-way through the article. They're not the focus, not in the least. And yet here is the headline:

Political infighting between N.J. Dems, GOP gets nasty

If you left out the "GOP" part of that, it would be an accurate headline. One wonders what precisely, if anything, was on the mind of the headline writer. Or was (s)he just following his inner bias?

Posted by susanna at 12:26 PM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
August 23, 2004
Novel blogs

The novel Lady Killer by Meryl Sawyer focuses on yet another serial killer prowling for victims, this one in San Francisco. Sawyer, a veteran author, builds a good romantic suspense novel with mostly believable characters; it's certainly worth a few hours with the paperback version. But the best thing about the book? Its mention of bloggers.

Jessica Crawford is a trends columnist for an independently owned newspaper in San Francisco, the San Francisco Herald. She and her two friends Zoe and Stacy, also columnists at the newspaper, are in their early 30s and of the "Sex in the City" generation. They get together and talk about men and work; they bond by going together to get Brazilian wax jobs. When the paper's crime reporter goes into rehab, Jessica gets pulled into covering the serial killer because her father, Richard Crawford, was the newspaper's Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter before his retirement. He's now nearly confined to his home with Parkinson's, but that doesn't stop him from participating in the chase of the killer.

Early in the book, Jessica goes to Hawaii to research a column; she has a close encounter that results in a surprising twist when she returns to San Francisco. Teamed with Cole, the new crime reporter, and her friends, she closes down on the serial killer only to realize that she is now also a target.

The characters are likeable if, at times, stereotypically sketched and of unclear value to the storyline - social columnist Marci with an "i" and Duff-the-misfit-medical-columnist come immediately to mind. And some parts of the storyline emerge ominously only to eventually mean little. The detective work is mostly done by the journalists, current and retired, and the police are not much in evidence. But, again, it's a good light read, and I wasn't in the end disappointed. I intend to read more of her work.

The best part of the whole book for me as a blogger was Sawyer's discussion of blogs when one of her characters used them as a potential source of information. The book was published in 2003, which means it was likely completed more than a year ago, so she is quite ahead on the trend - much like her protagonist, Jessica Crawford. If you're interested, the section on blogs is on pages 345-346. Unfortunately, like some other aspects of the story, she spends a lot of time (relatively speaking) on blogs, building them up, then really not using them as a plot device - only mentioning them in passing, albeit a looonggg passing.

And for my readers, I am reproducing it in "MORE". Because you're worth it.

MORE...
Posted by susanna at 11:09 AM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
August 21, 2004
Justice more criminal than just

Here's one reason why I think more education and criminal justice professionals need to be educated about criminal justice research:

Hundreds of Jefferson County children were shackled and forced against their will into a state lockup for juvenile delinquents by a DYS psychologist who was running a private business on the side...

[Psychologist Leroy Richardson's] "Scared Straight" program existed from 1997 until his dismissal in 2003. At least 400 children who had not been charged or convicted of any crime were shackled and locked up at the Department of Youth Services Vacca campus for up to eight hours. Some of them were locked up more than once, according to state Personnel Board records.

Vacca is the equivalent of a prison for juveniles. By state law, it's supposed to take a judge's order for a child to be sent there.

Richardson's list of misbehaviors is long, bizarre and venal, including hiring his day boss as a consultant for his private consulting firm (and apparently his day boss returned the favor by giving him glowing evaluations at work). You really need to read the whole article to understand. Even then, you'll wonder what the people who allowed this to happen were thinking. But the problem I want to focus on here is this: Richardson's "Scared Straight" type program is based on a concept that was shown to be ineffective more than 25 years ago! Again, you should read this entire article about "Scared Straight", but this will give you a flavor of it:

In 1977, Dr. James 0. Finckenauer, an associate professor in the Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice submitted a proposal to the State Law Enforcement Planning Agency of New Jersey for a grant to evaluate the Juvenile Awareness Project Help [aka Scared Straight] with a team of researchers. The idea was to submit the results of the program to more intense analysis...

Quickly, during the first round [of the evaluation], the researchers noticed something odd. There is a "test" for predicting juvenile delinquency called the Glueck Social Prediction Table, developed by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck in 1950, which classifies subjects into low, medium, and high probability of delinquent behavior. The Rutgers researchers discovered that over 70% of the 81 juveniles designated for the Rahway program had a low probability of delinquency according to the Glueck Table. About 20% had a medium probability, and only 8% had a high probability "If this is so," they wrote, "it raises several issues: Why do these particular kids need to attend the Project? Why are referring agencies not sending more high probability juveniles who might be more in need of deterrence? If the low probability of delinquency juveniles in fact do not become delinquent, can the JAPH claim credit?"

Training schools are for the worst and most persistent juvenile offenders, but another curiosity: not one of the 81 had ever been in a training school...

"The authors find no overriding reason at this point," they concluded, "to reject our hypothesis that the Juvenile Awareness Project has no effect on the attitudes of the juveniles attending... we maintain, until there is further evidence to the contrary, that it is probably simplistic and unrealistic to expect that a two or three hour visit to Rahway can counteract the long-term effects of all these other factors."

The article is much more detailed about the experiment conducted to evaluate the program, and its specific results. The final conclusion, though, is clear: There's no reason to think it works. And now, more than 25 years later, taxpayers are dropping piles of money in the pockets of a psychologist conducting a program proven ineffective. A lot of people in the Birmingham area were involved in getting the kids there:

Parents signed their children up for the one-day program to address misbehavior and were aware Richardson locked them up at Vacca, according to board records. The children and their parents were referred to the program by the Birmingham and Bessemer school systems, workers from the Alabama Department of Human Resources, doctors and other agencies.

Didn't they ask questions about effectiveness? Ask to see data? Something?

The lack of knowledge in the general public about the efficacy of various criminal justice programs is, well, criminal. We spend so much money on them, politicians get elected on the basis of them, all of us have opinions about them. But so few truly know much truth about them.

As another example, consider the widespread DARE program - some departments have fulltime dedicated DARE officers. What do evaluators say?

This paper examines the effectiveness of the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in Charleston County, South Carolina by comparing 341 fifth grade DARE students to 367 nonDARE students. Significant differences were found in the predicted direction for alcohol use in the last year, belief in prosocial norms, association with drug using peers, positive peer association, attitudes against substance use, and assertiveness. No differences were found on cigarette, tobacco, or marijuana use in the last year, frequency of any drug use in the past month, attitudes about police, coping strategies, attachment and commitment to school, rebellious behavior, and self-esteem.

If you'll notice, the areas with "no difference" are the ones where the community is expecting it to make a difference. Here's a discussion of a review looking at evaluations of DARE from the late 1980s to 1993 (that's the year the first study above was done):

The early DARE evaluations (1987-1989) were generally favorable - showing decreased alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, increased resistance to drug use, increased self-esteem, and other positive results.

The majority of the recent evaluations of DARE (late 1989 to
present) have shown decidedly mixed results. The majority of these
recent studies attempt to measure the longer-term effects of DARE
(one or more years after the completion of the DARE curriculum).
The current consensus is that DARE does significantly and
positively affect student attitudes toward alcohol, tobacco, and
other drugs (ATOD), but the findings generally indicate that
exposure to DARE does not significantly reduce the actual use of
these drugs.

In general, the better controlled studies tend to show the least
effect of DARE. In addition, follow-up studies, which track
students for several years following DARE exposure, tend to show
little or no lasting effects of DARE.

Emphasis mine. When you scroll through the results of the various evaluations, you'll find a lot of improved self-esteem, improved police/student relations, improved consciousness of media influences. But by the end of evaluations - the newer ones - you aren't seeing much in the way of reduction in drug use.

And what do we have? Look here, and here, and here, and here.

There is some evidence that DARE programs help; I'd be interested to see more details about the studies that showed positive effects. But again, most of the effects reported were stated as "students, teachers and parents think it works".

I think it's clear that there's a huge breakdown between criminal justice researchers and both practitioners and end users of criminal justice products (policing, courts, corrections). Think about that the next time you hear a law 'n order politician running for office.

Posted by susanna at 09:48 PM | Comments (2) | Trackback (0)
Another Marine's story

Here's a good letter from an American on the ground in Iraq.

Posted by susanna at 08:50 PM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
Framing - and I don't mean photographs

I've mentioned several times that I think bias in the media evidences itself mostly in framing - how raw data is interpreted and presented by the journalist and/or medium. Theosebes has a great example of what I'm talking about.

Posted by susanna at 08:43 PM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
August 20, 2004
Full Metal Jacket Malkin

This column by Michelle Malkin is a great inside look at television "journalism" in action.

Although it's a very minor point in her column, I was amused by the exchange about her age. She does look very young, but I must say I never really thought about it in regards to her work. She quotes Chris Matthews as saying, '"Are you sure you are old enough to be on the show? What are you? 28?"' It seems to me that 28 is plenty old enough to be on the show and know a lot. Many journalists working for big newspapers are between 25-30 when they're handling major stories. Military men and women much younger than that are making life and death decisions daily in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, if he'd sneered that he thought she looked 18 and that was too young, I'd find it a little more reasonable, even as a joke.

That aside, while I don't know Malkin's age, I would have guessed her as early 30s, just from seeing her confidence and ability to handle herself in rough interviews like Matthews saw fit to instigate. But I don't know. I don't care. She's tough, smart and does her homework. Does it matter how old she is?

Yes, yes, he did it as a smear, and that's funny because he'd probably say he doesn't participate in agism and sexism, PC journalist that he is. And like I said, it's vanishingly unimportant in the greater scope of the whole incident. But it just goes to show that he doesn't even try to be logical in his insults, much less his "journalism".

I don't watch the political pundits much, and that's one of the reasons why. I think a lot of them are just that way, and more than a few on the right too. One reason I like the blogosphere is because you get to know the person behind the blog in a more well-rounded way. For an example, Glenn Reynolds. I don't know him, have never met him, but just from reading his writing on a nearly daily basis for over two years, I think I have an accurate sense of his character. I think he's capable of being snide (aren't we all?), and probably has a sharp tongue when he wants to, but even in circumstances where he was angry and both disliked and disagreed with someone, I don't think he'd take that kind of pathetic potshot. In fact, he has been snide and sharp-tongued on his blog. But never pathetic or, I think, small-minded. Matthews was both, and a lot of the pundits are. And I don't trust them as far as I could throw, well, Glenn Reynolds.

And the same is true of other bloggish types. I read them enough, and they write on a broad enough range of things frequently enough, to where I know how much I can trust what they say. I'm getting to where I go to the mainstream news for raw data, and go to bloggers for context. The pundits who have blogs are more likely to get my vote of confidence too - which is why I like The Corner on NRO, and I'm glad that some writers from Weekly Standard have their own blog now.

It's starting to storm now, and I'm starting to ramble, so I'll shut my mouth and shut down the computer. My arm and back are hurting anyway - I fell, again, yesterday, I apparently have permanently claimed the title of "grace". This time I grabbed a rough wooden post to break my fall and managed to abrade about 5 inches of skin along the inside of my left forearm. Almost 24 hours later, part of it is still red and swollen around the areas that actually bled. Charming. So. Have a good evening, I'm going to go find my tube of neosporin.

Posted by susanna at 05:07 PM | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)