If you haven’t seen tonight’s episode, don’t click the link…

(more…)

Dolphins stuck in Long Island shallows; Nick Saban unavailable for comment.

I hate the phrase “Who are you wearing?” Hate it. HATE!!! ;)

(Becky has the E! pre-show for the Golden Globes on.)

Oh, goody:

…HEAVY LAKE EFFECT SNOW EXPECTED TONIGHT AND TUESDAY…

.MUCH COLDER AIR WILL SWEEP INTO THE AREA TONIGHT…MOVING OVER THE RELATIVELY WARM WATERS OF LAKE MICHIGAN. WINDS WILL BECOME NORTH NORTHWEST WHICH WILL FAVOR A SINGLE BAND OF HEAVY LAKE EFFECT SNOW. THIS BAND IS EXPECTED TO DEVELOP LATER THIS EVENING OVER LAPORTE AND STARKE COUNTIES AND THEN DRIFT EAST AND INTENSIFY OVERNIGHT. LATE TONIGHT THROUGH TUESDAY THE BAND IS EXPECTED TO OSCILLATE ACROSS NORTHWEST INDIANA AND SOUTHWEST LOWER MICHIGAN. IN AREAS WHERE THE BAND PERSISTS THE LONGEST…SIGNIFICANT ACCUMULATIONS ARE EXPECTED. . . .

LAKE EFFECT SNOW WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 10 PM THIS EVENING TO 4 PM EST TUESDAY.

THE NATL WEATHER SVC IN N. IN HAS ISSUED A LAKE EFFECT SNOW WARNING.WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 10 PM THIS EVENING TO 4 PM EST TUESDAY. THIS UPGRADES THE LAKE EFFECT SNOW WATCH WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY IN EFFECT.

A BAND OF HEAVY LAKE EFFECT SNOW IS EXPECTED TO DEVELOP LATE THIS EVENING & CONTINUE THROUGH TUESDAY. THE BAND IS EXPECTED TO OSCILLATE EAST & WEST AT TIMES.WITH SEVERAL PERIODS OF HEAVY SNOW POSSIBLE IN AFFECTED LOCATIONS AS THE BAND SHIFTS. SNOWFALL RATES OF 1 TO 2 INCHES PER HOUR WILL BE POSSIBLE UNDER THE MOST INTENSE PORTIONS OF THE LAKE EFFECT SNOW BAND.CREATING NEAR ZERO VISIBILITY AT TIMES. STORM TOTAL ACCUMULATIONS OF 5 TO 10 INCHES ARE EXPECTED IN AREAS WHERE THE BAND PERSISTS.WITH ISOLATED TOTALS OF A FOOT OR MORE POSSIBLE. NW WINDS OF 10 TO 20 MPH WITH GUSTS TO AROUND 25 MPH MAY ALSO RESULT IN SOME MINOR BLOWING & DRIFTING SNOW.

Of course, 1) the last time they said this, it was a dud here in South Bend, with the heavy snowfall well to the northeast; and 2) to Buffalonians like Becky, calling 5-10 inches a “heavy” lake-effect snow event is blasphemy. But still.

Stupid people are more likely to hurt themselves.

In other news, dog is more likely to bite man when man attacks first.

It’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (though you wouldn’t know it here at Notre Dame Law School, as we have class today), but I haven’t yet had a chance to do my annual tradition of spending 16 minutes of my day with Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. I will later, though… and for those who’d like to do the same, here’s a video clip:

If you just want the audio clip, here you go:

source file
MP3 File

It always gives me goose bumps, every time I listen to it.

There has been some press about an exchange on Thursday between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice regarding the Bush administration’s troop surge plan for Iraq. Most of the coverage has been focused on whether Sen. Boxer’s comments about Rice’s lack of children making it more difficult for her to understand the sacrifice of a parent as she has no children (somehow feminists are up in arms because they think its an attack on a single, unmarried succesful women) but more important I think, is this part of the exchange:

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: Do you have an estimate of the number of casualties we expect from this surge?

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: No, Senator, I don’t think there’s any way to give you such an estimate.

SENATOR BARBARA BOXER: Has the president — because he said expect more sacrifice, he must know.

SECRETARY OF STATE CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Senator, I don’t think that any of us have a number that — of expected casualties. I think that people understand that there is going to be violence for some time in Iraq and that there will be more casualties.

Are you serious??? Secretary Rice would have us believe that no one in this administration has asked for or seen a casualty estimate for this proposed action? Do they honestly expect us to believe that? Come on, military leaders have been doing casualty estimates for hundreds if not thousands of years! So either this administration is lying to the American people or it is grossly incompetent. I’m not sure which is worse.

Hawaii QB Colt Brennan is keeping his options open:

Hawaii quarterback Colt Brennan said last night he will declare himself eligible for the NFL Draft today, but with the possibility of pulling back and returning to UH for his senior season.

Brennan emphasized he is doing so to meet today’s deadline for underclassmen to make themselves available for the pro draft and that he then has until Thursday to take his name off the draft list. He said he was still 50-50 on whether he will turn pro or not.

“What I’m asking for is I need more time. I’m trying to keep myself eligible (for the draft), but I’m still torn. I’m still just torn down the middle.

“I’m still awaiting some information, some of it personal,” Brennan added.

Some of the information he wants is whether Louisville junior quarterback Brian Brohm will declare for the draft. Brohm’s presence in or absence from the draft could affect Brennan’s status.

Brennan was originally scheduled to announce his decision at a 10:30 news conference at UH this morning. That has been changed to 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Go, Brohm, go! Stay, Colt, stay!

In another article, he’s quoted as saying of his draft declaration today: “It does not mean I’ve made a decision. No, that is not it at all. I swear to God that’s not it. I need more time.”

UPDATE: D’oh! Brian Brohm is staying put.

Actually, that’s good for the continuing credibility and success of the Big East. But it’s bad for my favorite Big East team, Rutgers, making it harder for them to win the conference next year — and it’s worse if it helps convince Brennan to go pro.

Alternative title: “Don’t believe everything you see on TV… or in the newspaper… or in a press release …”

Alternative alternative title: “Multiple layers of fact-checkers and editors strike again!”

The local Fox affiliate here in South Bend, WSJV Channel 28, ran a brief story at the end of tonight’s 10pm news quoting something called the “Oxford Hair Foundation” as saying that redheads may be “extinct” by the end of the century. Supposedly, the recessive gene that gives people red hair will “die out.” Being a redhead myself, I thought this was interesting and potentially blogworthy — and I was also a little skeptical. Why would this be the case? Why now? Redheads have been around for all of human history; why would we suddenly die out? And what the heck is the “Oxford Hair Foundation,” anyway? They say that with a name like Smuckers, it has to be good… and I say, with a name like the “Oxford Hair Foundation,” you have to be skeptical.

On both of these points, the explanation in the TV report was grossly inadequate. But hey, that’s par for the course with local TV news. So I decided to investigate further. I went to Google News and did a quick search. Surprisingly, I only came up with one article, from the Sydney Morning Herald’s blog. Some of the language used in that article was darn near identical to what I’d just heard on TV (immediately suggesting that this is press-release “journalism” at work), and again, the scientific explanation was extremely thin:

Redheads beware! You may be headed the way of dodos, dinosaurs and Whitney Houston’s career. Britain’s Oxford Hair Foundation predicts that, by the end of the century, carrot-tops might have disappeared from the face of the Earth.

The foundation says that only 4 per cent of the world’s population carry the recessive gene for red hair and that, over time, brunettes, blondes and pepperheads will control human hair colour with their dominant genes.

Unsatisfied and still a bit skeptical, I decided to check out this so-called “Oxford Hair Foundation.” That’s when I got really skeptical. Take a look at their website. It contains an very unprofessional-looking message that states:

The Oxford Hair Foundation website has decided to transfer its information to P &G Beauty Science instead. Thank you for your visit.

Well, what the heck does that mean? What sort of “foundation” would “transfer its information” to another website? Specifically, a website run by Procter & Gamble — a company which, oh by the way, makes hair-care products? Curiouser and curiouser.

I next consulted Wikipedia, but they don’t have a page for the “Oxford Hair Foundation,” which made me even more skeptical. If I’m important enough to be on Wikipedia, surely a legitimate scientific organization would be, too. Right? So what gives?

At this point I moved out of Google News and back into regular Google searching — and guess what I found? A bunch of random, miscellaneous websites from various different dates parroting this same alleged study. Here’s one from November 2006, and one from March 2006. WTF? Even if this “study” is legit, how is it “news” if it’s months old?

But the final blow to the credibility of this “story” comes from a search on the new Google News Archive. Check it out… there are numerous stories from reputable news organizations, going back years, repeating the same bunch of crap. For example:

(more…)