I�m starting to feel like this space is becoming equal parts AJ anecdotes, academic angst and commentary on New York Times editorials dealing with women. Today you�ll get all three.

1. AJ

My driveway is currently adorned with two enormous drawings of the solar system done in colorful sidewalk chalk. On one side, the planets all feature smiling faces and Pluto is saying �Brrrr.� The orbits are drawn all the way around an enormous sun, complete with sunspots. On the other side, AJ seems to have strived for greater accuracy. North and South America are clearly visible on planet earth. Assorted moons for assorted planets are drawn and, where he knows the names (Phobos, Deimos, Ganymede) he has labeled them. Neptune and Plutos orbits carefully cross on this version. But still, I have a slight preference for the one with the smiley faces. Don�t tell AJ.

2. Academia

The conference starts tonight, although I�m bailing on the opening reception. I�ve never been to one before, and I don�t see why I should start now. Instead I�m heading to the yoga studio for some inner peace. I will probably need it to face the trek downtown tomorrow on a train that leave before 7 a.m. We�re expecting 7 inches of snow tonight. The paper is done and the handouts are done and I�m pretty happy with all of it. I�m now trying to get myself in that mental state that I need to get something out of conferences. It�s hard when you�re not staying on site. Although I�ll have an hour on the train to get my head together in the morning. I�ve just discovered that the Conference banquet is actually a dinner dance. They�ll be teaching us American dances from the 20s and 30s as we dine on convention food. I�ll need to pack some dancing shoes.

3. New York Times editorial about women

Today�s entry in this category is an editorial by Claudia Goldin, a Harvard econ professor whose book, Understanding the Gender Gap makes such a smart and interesting use of statistics that I found it fascinating reading.

It�s not the editorial itself that disturbs me this time, but the accompanying artwork, an hourglass shape filled with random statistics about gender and marriage and accomplishment. Statistics like �95 percent of women who graduate from an Ivy League College will never learn to play the harp;� and �.001 percent of unmarried urban women pursuing advanced degrees in education spent 1.2 hours each week watching Nascar compared with 8.9 percent of married women with 2.1 children who spent .45 hours watching �Desperate Housewives.�� If the editorial had dealt with the ease with which statistics can be manipulated, then the art would have been perfect. But as it is, the artwork seems to be commentary on the editorial, and that commentary is not favorable. Was it the paper�s intention to contradict the editorial in that way by undercutting the value of statistics? Or was it a careless error caused by a designer who didn�t actually read the editorial? Either way, it sells Goldin short.

And now to assume the lotus position.

5 people said it like they meant it