A study published in the British Medical Journal reveals that over-the-counter cough medicines don't work. I'm on the mend from an awful bout with the flu this week and back at work finally. I tried coming in to work on Wednesday but was sent home because of my hacking cough, which must have been a distraction to my cube-fellows. So much for OTC Robitussin, of which I had drunk long and deep. I finally went to the doctor this morning and scored some Guiatuss AC, the AC standing for Absolutely Codeine-enriched. Tonight I hope to sleep the sleep of the blessed.
Here's another odd headline from the folks at Reuter's: LA schools remove vandalized Korans. Read the story and you find nothing about "vandalized" Korans. Rather, in the wake of the September 11th attacks on New York and DC by, er, militants, an Islamic group donated some Koran translations to the LA school district to "promote religious understanding." Problem was the Korans had anti-Semitic comments printed in the footnotes. What's interesting is the first version of this story that came out yesterday doesn't mention any vandalism.
Mr. Bucher and I have a running dispute about the relative merits of canines and felines. I once argued that no cat had ever selflessly died while saving its owners life, and within the week I had been refuted by some courageous calico. And here it's happened again: Pregnant woman saved from fire by heroic cat (named Smokey).
UPDATE: A home invasion in Philadelphia was recently thwarted by a decidely unpusillanimous pussy cat.
As our dependence on foreign oil increases, and Daschle continues to block drilling at home, maybe it's finally time we took a closer look at burning chicken fat.
We've all done stupid things in our time, but I think few of us can really claim to be as dumb as this Georgia fugitive. Though, at least he's not claiming his evil clone did it.
Zimbabwe has revoked Sen. Russ Feingold's visa and upcoming visit, saying he'd just be in the way.
I know it's a week early to go all mushy on you, but here's an interesting article on the power of love to change the bottom line.
The DV numbers lampooned below by our Irish friend are truly egregious. Making every man out to be a wife-beater certainly does no favors for the few women who are really in life-threatening relationships. But this kind of do-gooder fun with statistics is all too common. One reason advocacy statistics don't get the scrutiny they so richly deserve is that they tend to confirm the prejudices of their target audiences. Most people wouldn't even know how to go about evaluating a statistical survey if they wanted to. But those who already secretly suspected that Proposition X was true have no motive at all to question the methodology of the research that finally proves it. Often they are all too willing to delude themselves into thinking that the research must be flawless.
A great example of this has been provided by Matt Welch, who did a little Nexis search on mentions of Marc Herold's Afghan civilian casualty stats, lately discredited here and here. An amazing number of them assume that his statistics are conservative estimates, despite the unfortunate fact that they've been shown to exaggerate by a factor of four. They also believe on faith that he must have painstakingly cross-checked the media accounts of civilian deaths to avoid double counting, which is precisely what he didn't do.
Which reminds me of my own reaction to the gender wage gap statistics when I was reminded of them a few years ago in a Women and Public Policy class I took. They were the typical seventy-odd cents on the dollar aggregate figures of female versus male earnings. We were discussing it and everyone was livid, the main question being, "How do they get away with it?" I, myself, was outraged, because I assumed that these figures must take into account things like educational level, time spent outside the workforce, full or part-time status, etc. I remember thinking, so naively, that otherwise it wouldn't really be honest to push non-adjusted figures around if they were really comparing apples to oranges, or, rather, soccer moms with part-time gigs to union guys with overtime.
Well, a year or so later the Independent Women's Forum disabused me of the notion that there was any significant adjusted wage gap. Actually, the National Organization of Women continues to push the non-adjusted numbers in order to make it seem as though women have not made any real progress. And I wonder yet again, "How do they get away with it?"
Apparently, they have some help from liberal members of Congress. Betsy Hart has a revealing account of a conversation Rep. Maloney had with her about the recent GAO report, ³Women in Management: Analysis of Selected Data from the Current Population Survey,² which Maloney and Rep. John Dingell renamed, ³A New Look Through the Glass Ceiling: Where are the Women?²
She also makes some great points about non-adjusted wage-gap studies and the anti-choice liberals that love them:
The GAO study had several limitations. For instance, it did not control for experience, level of managerial responsibility, or most important, continuous years spent in the workforce. (The Maloney/Dingell analyses in effect dismissed these shortcomings.) Yet, studies which do control for these relevant factors continually show that the wage gap between men and women virtually or totally disappears. In some industries, including once male-dominated ones like architecture, studies show that women earn slightly more than men.The problem for liberals like Maloney and Dingell is that they cannot conceive of women preferring to forgo or cutback careers for a time (or altogether) to care for children, or choosing slower-paced careers at the outset, like pediatrics as opposed to neurosurgery, even when they know this might affect their long-term earnings potential. At best feminists frame the debate as featuring a ³choice² women shouldnıt have to make because itıs a choice feminists donıt want them to make.
Something to remember when Equal Pay Day rolls around...
Update: Thanks to numerate reader Kate Redmond for pointing out that Herold's figures were off by a "factor" of four, not a "power." Quelle embarrassment!
An Irishman takes a fine stab at misleading statistics on domestic violence towards women and points out a clear double standard:
Moreover, we are told, violence is incipient for some 70 per cent of all women, because of evidence of "controlling behaviour" by their partners. Why? And what is controlling behaviour, anyway? Well, inter alia, we are told that it is limiting a woman's social life, checking on her movements, being personally critical, or keeping her short of money.Ah me, how the head buzzes. So if a woman tries to restrict her husband's excessive social life, if she wants to know what her husband been up to because he's away from home so much, if she criticises his domestic laziness, or if she tries to limit his expenditure on alcohol, are these examples of controlling behaviour? Of course not. For these surveys have a feminist point to make, and they unfailingly make them.
Surprisingly balanced article on the gender gap in academic achievement in Salon.
I thought I knew something about extreme ironing, having successfully tackled our 100% cotton queen-sized duvet cover week before last. Now I realize if I want to compete internationally, I need to get a really long extension cord, a ticket to Munich, and some all-weather gear.
According to the Englishman whose fortune founded the Smithsonian, "Every man is a valuable member of society who by his observations, researches, and experiments procures knowledge for men." Sadly, the PC line at the Institution today is that 'only movements and institutions make a difference, not individuals.' A local businesswoman, whose husband runs the American Academy of Achievement, had pledged $38 million to the Smithsonian to create an exhibit on individual achievement. But her proposal caused so much controversy among the apparatchiks of the Institute's bureaucracy, she's now rescinded the pledge.
The curators of the Smithsonian seem to be united against so-called privatization of Institute exhibits, as this Washington Post Magazine piece shows, however the financial realities of museum management require that they seek private donations. And few corporate or private donors are eager to sign on for more projects that continue to ignore the positive aspects of American history. Neither are many members of Congress, which partially explains the Institute's funding problems.
Diagramming sentences is back, as teachers begin to reject the idea that grammar is worthless. Amazingly, a few years ago the National Council of Teachers of English actually published an article in its journal that claimed not only that "in general, the teaching of grammar does not serve any practical purpose for most students," but also that "it does not improve reading, speaking, writing, or even editing, for the majority of students." How are you supposed to know what good language is if no one is willing to teach it to you?
I learned to diagram sentences in college, and can attest that it is great fun. In high school, I received very basic grammar instruction, mostly rote memorization: "A noun is a person, place, or thing." As is probably common among many other people my age, most of what I know about the finer points of English grammar, I learned in the course of studying the grammar of other languages. Many of my mother's college English students come in with next to no knowledge of grammar or spelling, victims of this "whole language" approach that also rejects phonics. She takes it upon herself to teach both, with the idea they are both necessary to good composition.
The always interesting Anne Applebaum of Slate argues that we still need the help of Europe to fight the war against terror. To some extent she is correct. We need their intelligence, we need them to freeze terrorist assets, and most of all, we need them to enforce their own laws against terrorists within their borders.
Applebaum argues against "dumping Europe." The anti-Americanism that has spewed out of European newspapers since September 11th has certainly made getting out of NATO a fun topic to joke about. But I don't think anyone is seriously advocating it. On the other hand, many of the anti-Americans have argued that this new war requires us to bind ourselves even closer to Europe by reconsidering our stances on Kyoto and other rejected treaties. What both these lines of argument ignore is that Europeans, too, need to be safe from terror. After the September attacks in the US, it was revealed that an Al Qeada plot to pump sarin gas in the European Parliament had been foiled. Other attacks against European targets have since been thwarted, as well. Because of the long-term military investments of American taxpayers, we are the only ones with a military capable of waging this war. Thus, isn't it also in their best interest to help us?
UGH. Sorry not to have written in a few days. First, I was trying to write another chapter of the big paper, then I took ill. My Sudafed-addled mind has not been good for much in the way of Intelligent Discourse the past few days. What cerebral activity there has been has been confined to that lower portion of the brain what excels at recognizing great discomfort. I'll not try your patience with a lengthy discription of my ghastly symptoms. I'm not sure I have the strength for it anyway. I promise I'll write lots more once I'm more lucid, should that day ever come again. Now I feel the antihistamine fog returning....