Day: January 9, 2004

A new episode of “Joan of Arcadia”!

Some people get way too personal with their blogs, according to “My So-Called Blog” in the NY Times Magazine this weekend. Teenagers blogging treat their blogs like diaries, airing out everything (their angst, their secret crushes, etc. – as if anyone cares? Or, maybe that’s the point – they get some “privacy”). So, they know their thoughts get out into the public, but still essentially believe that their thoughts are “private.” Is that appropriate? Are the 21st century’s teenagers assuming too much about their privacy when they blog, because they somehow can draw the line between the virtual world and the real world? Good for them, but is it good for the rest of us? I guess that’s the blog culture for you, but this is what makes me glad that Triscribe isn’t really like that.

Some people also take the candidates’ wardrobe way too seriously. Apparently, the media has been noticing that Wesley Clark has taken to wearing sweaters instead of his suits. Tonight, even the Lehrer Newshour commentators (Mark Shields and David Brooks) referred to Clark’s sweater as his “Mr. Rogers” look. Brooks’ take on it is that Clark’s going to get the “King Friday” endorsement. I’m, like, “huh?” I know it was PBS and all, but it was a bit much on the wit on Brooks’ part. Personally, I think Clark looked better in his suits, since he would look sharper and more presidential. Or, really, why don’t we just stick with looking at the candidates’ policies and positions rather than their clothes?

Plus, today’s NY Times also has this analysis that Clark is trying to portray himself in a “softer” way with his sweaters, to win over women voters. As a woman, I find that borderline offensive – are we women perceived as so lacking in thinking capability such that we need commercials to explain to us that the General supports women? Is it just because women are allegedly “put off by the military persona” – that arena dominated by men? (an aside: umm, well, you know, women serve(d) in Clark’s army; surely I’m not the only woman who knows that!).

Nonetheless, according the Times’ article, apparently the voters in New Hampshire need a commercial with an African-American female major (retired) who served under Clark to tell them that Clark supports women _and_ minorities – the double bind thing that particularly affects women of color: shameless pandering, I daresay! I’m not sure if the media (or the Clark/Democratic campaign) really thinks or portrays the public is that unsophisticated, or if the public really is that dim about Clark, women, and voting generally. However, maybe this should be an opportunity to educate the public that has a disconnection from what the military is: women and minorities are very much a part of today’s military – something that isn’t just a white male bastion – which Clark probably already knew. Food for thought, I guess.

Consumer Webwatch, the Internet arm of Consumers Union, spent $38,000 buying air, car and hotel reservations to see if choose your own price sites Priceline and Hotwire actually beat what can be found on regular travel sites. The answer is yes; in Priceline’s case 47% of the time. However, Orbitz placed a close second, and you didn’t have to fly blind. The only caveat is that the trained bettor knew what the going price of that reservation was going to be by looking it up in Sabre, the travel agents reservation network. Most people bet on Priceline without a clue of what would be the lowest price that would be accepted. You can read the report online.

F.D.A. Defers Final Decision About Implants (New York Times)

In a story about the F.D.A. holding off of approving silicone breast implants:

Many people expected the agency to follow the recommendation of its advisory committee, which is its usual practice. But the implant issue was particular fractious.

“This was a very visible product, and we had input from almost everybody and anybody,” Dr. Feigal said.

[Dr. David Feigal is an official of the Food and Drug Administration]

I was talking to SSW15 on the phone the other day and I was commenting on tourist guide books. Try this: go to your nearest book emporium (Barnes & Noble recently triumphed in my neighborhood, forcing the long-standing Waldenbooks into retreat), go to the travel section, and pick up guidebooks for your hometown and other places that you know well. See if you agree with their treatment of sights, places to stay, and restaurants. I sampled guidebooks for New York (hometown), Honolulu, Walt Disneyland, Las Vegas and Hong Kong. I gave bonus points for any guide that mentioned, let alone described fully, the following: Brooklyn, the Hakka Chinese dialect, food or location of settlements, locations in Orange County outside of Anaheim, Ali’iolani Hale (the judiciary building behind the statue of King Kamehameha I), and Red Rock Canyon.

I found that Frommers were generally the best overall in terms of accuracy and usefulness. Fodors tended to be not as good. Unofficial Guides were best for planning strategy in limited environment areas, such as theme parks areas and Hawaii, where time management was important. Rough Guides were better in non US areas. Insight Guides had the best pictures and great history, but were next to useless for actually planning a trip. For those places that had it, Lonely Planet Food Guides were really good for understanding cultures. Unfortunately, I find that no one guide can completely cover any particular area, but I guess that’s what reading the books in the coffee cafe is for.