Yesterday, I promised to blog what I've been up to lately—other than, of course, watching lots and lots of tennis on ESPN.

On Wednesday, I joined an old friend in New York for a couple of days of Gotham-style entertainment. That night, we caught Wicked, the Tony Award-nominated musical that has captured my friend's heart. (This was his fourth time.) I have to say that I can completely understand his passion. Wicked has a witty story, one that completely reinterprets The Wizard of Oz; compelling performances by, among others, Kristin Chenoweth and Idina Menzel; and, well, the allure of a good spectacle. I found the lyrics to be a bit hit-or-miss, but I'll be pretty shocked if Wicked doesn't bring home the Tony for Best Musical next weekend. I'll also be rooting for Menzel to take home the Tony for Best Leading Actress in a Musical. She sings like an angel or, I guess, an angelic witch.

On Thursday, after a nice lunch in the East Village, we caught a taping of The Late Show with David Letterman. When we got the tickets, Mike Myers was supposed to be the guest; when we got to the taping, though, the guest had suddenly become SNL's Darrell Hammond. Truthfully, I've never found Hammond to be that funny, but I definitely did enjoy Blink 182 as the musical guest. And for the record, the Top 10 List for the show was "Things You Don't Want to Hear at a Gas Station."

Later on Thursday, we saw Twentieth Century, the comedy starring Alec Baldwin and Anne Heche. I thought the play was pretty dreadful, consisting of little more than some forced irony pointed at pre-WWII America. Baldwin, too, was pretty unconvincing as a self-absorbed theater producer whose career depends on signing Heche to sign a contract. Heche, though, demonstrated a real talent for physical comedy. I can understand her Tony nomination for the part.... After the play, and this just made sense after an evening full of clichés, we had dinner at Sardi's.

On Friday, I headed back to Philly so the flatmate and I could attend the Jerry Seinfeld concert (hmmm, is concert really the right word?) at the Academy of Music. I was pretty tired, but Seinfeld was awfully funny. (And with Seinfeld's license, I now feel entitled to criticize the flatmate's rampant use of "tone.")

On Saturday, the flatmate and I entertained another old friend of mine, someone I met in the late 1980s in grad school. It was awfully good to see her. Plus, her visit prompted me to splurge at my favorite diner and have a slice of Boston creme pie. Yum.

Six straight days of good times and tennis. Is it any wonder that I don't want to go back to work tomorrow?

As I mentioned yesterday, I had a real shot at correctly picking six of the eight French Open men's quarterfinalists. And if it weren't for a few blisters on Marat Safin's hands, I'd've made it. As it is, though, I'm thrilled with my five-for-eight record. Let's look in depth at my picks:

Roger Federer - I said this yesterday, but I'm still feeling it: I just can't feel bad about picking Federer here. Federer has clearly been the top player for months, and I just couldn't have foreseen that Gustavo Kuerten—the former French Open champ who has never recovered from hip surgery—would suddenly find his form at the Open. I'm thrilled, though. Kuerten is charismatic, and we've missed him.

Marat Safin - Ouch. This one hurts. From the first round onward, I correctly picked nearly every match in this section of the draw. Just as I had it, it came down to Safin and former Wimbledon finalist David Nalbandian. I went with Safin, mostly on the strength of his four previous wins against Nalbandian. Today, though, Safin—suffering with some nasty-looking blisters on both hands—just couldn't remain competitive. Regardless, Nalbandian is definitely a worthy quarterfinalist.

Gaston Gaudio - Thank you, thank you, thank you. Yes, I correctly forecast that the unseeded Gaudio would emerge from this section of the draw. And if I can be permitted to keep stoking my own ego, let me also note this: I correctly thought that the match for the quarterfinal spot would probably occur in the second round, when Gaudio faced No. 14 Jiri Novak. Well, it was just as I called it: Gaudio prevailed over Novak in a tough five-setter. It's a rare treat to be so right....

Lleyton Hewitt - I'd appreciate a little bit of credit for this correct pick, too. Hewitt? On clay, his worst surface? Well, yes. I just didn't see anyone else in this section of the draw who could keep him out of the quarters, and I was absolutely right. Golly, even I'm impressed with my own pick here.

Carlos Moya - I said Moya was the obvious pick here, and I was right.

Guillermo Coria - My pick to win the whole tournament hasn't let me down.

Andre Agassi - I'm going to have a hard time selling this, I know, but I think I might deserve some partial credit for this pick. Sure, Agassi flamed out—spectacularly—in the first round, but I correctly had the no-game-on-clay Tim Henman coming through to the Round of 16. And, truthfully, given how strangely well Henman has played this clay-court season, he was my second pick to emerge from what was a pretty weak section of the draw. Partial credit? Pretty please? Pretty, pretty please? Nah, I didn't think so.

Juan Ignacio Chela - I'm awfully happy with myself for correctly putting the No. 22 seed into the quarterfinals. Watch as my head swells.

So, in the end, I correctly picked five of the eight quarterfinalists. Even with just missing the sixth, I'm happy with my performance. I correctly put an unseeded player, a No. 22 seed, and—for gosh sakes—Lleyton Hewitt into the quarters. I'll take that kind of tournament anytime....

Here's how I now see the rest of the tournament (changes from my original picks are in red):

Semifinals: Nalbandian vs. Hewitt; Coria vs. Chela.

Final: Nalbandian vs. Coria.

Champion: Coria.

The women's quarterfinalists at this year's French Open have been set. Let's see how well I did with the picks. Answer: not that well!

Justine Henin-Hardenne - How often is it a mistake to pick the women's world No. 1 to advance to a Grand Slam quarterfinal? Almost never. Here, though, we should've believed Henin-Hardenne when she said that a viral illness had left her at only 75% capacity. She lost in straight sets in the second round to Tathiana Garbin, who promptly lost in the third round. In the end, the quarterfinalist from this section of the draw turned out to be No. 14 Paola Suárez. In my defense, I did say I'd go with Suárez if Henin-Hardenne "truly [was] in a sad state." And she was. I hope you'll give me partial credit, because I'm going to need it.

Vera Zvonareva - Grumble. I always pick the wrong young Russian phenom to advance. Here, the choices were No. 10 Zvonareva, No. 8 Nadia Petrova, and No. 18 Maria Sharapova. I should've gone with Sharapova, but—truthfully—she was my last choice of the three.

Amélie Mauresmo - Bingo! My pick to win it all still looks good.

Lindsay Davenport - I correctly picked Davenport and No. 9 Elena Dementieva to advance to the Round of 16. Unfortunately, I saw Davenport, not Dementieva, as the quarterfinalist. I saw some of their match today, and Davenport was undone by a problem knee (again!). Is her career over? I'm beginning to think so.

Svetlana Kuznetsova - Once again, I correctly saw the Round of 16 match-up, only to botch up the quarterfinal pick. Here, I thought Kuznetsova would take out No. 6 Anastasia Myskina. Myskina prevailed, though, 8-6 in the final set. So close!

Fabiola Zuluaga - I know I'm a broken record, but I correctly had Zuluaga facing Venus Williams in the Round of 16. I erroneously gave Zuluaga the edge, thinking—like so many others—that Williams's bum ankle would pose a real problem. If Venus's ankle is actually still bothering her, though, it's sure not showing on the clay.

Jennifer Capriati - J-Cap, at least, comes through for me.

Serena Williams - Yesssss! Two in a row.

So, oh, how I've fallen mightily! Although I managed to correctly pick 10 of the players to reach the Round of 16, I only correctly picked a pitiful three of the quarterfinalists. How disappointing.

Given my misses, I need to make a minor (but only minor, he said defensively) change or two to my picks for the second weekend (the changes are in red):

Semifinals: Suárez vs. Mauresmo; V. Williams vs. S. Williams.

Final: Mauresmo v. S. Williams.

Champion: Mauresmo.

Two things to ponder (both via ArtsJournal's Daily Art News):

• The reality of Apple Blythe Alison Martin prompted The Economist to note that the "mutation rate" in American names is higher for girls than for boys. This means parents feel freer to give their daughters unusual, new names. That's hardly news, huh? The economist studying this phenomenon, Alexander Bentley, hypothesizes that parents feel more constrained by tradition when naming boys. Why? Well, American surnames are still inherited patrilineally (and although the article doesn't dwell on this, it is still expected that daughters will eventually take a new surname), so there's a greater opportunity to honor ancestors with boys' names.
  
  Things are changing for both sexes, though. Jaden suddenly became a popular boy in the 1990s. Still, when there are changes in the most popular boys' names, the rising stars are often quite venerable: Noah and Jacob, for instance, have been appearing on more and more birth certificates lately, while John and Paul have been declining.
  
  
• Another article in The Economist describes how the decipherment of their script has caused specialists to realize how important aesthetics were to the Mayans. Mayan artists, for instance, were highly regarded and weren't just, as in—say—Renaissance Europe, hired hands. Spelling, too, was apparently more about style than rules. And then there's this:

  [M]aize was the staff of life in Central America. The Maya thought of human beings as in some way made of maize: they distorted babies' soft skulls to make them look like a head of corn. They probably practised cannibalism: for them, it was like eating maize.

  It's interesting stuff, and it's probably just the push I needed to get myself down to the National Gallery of Art for its "Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya" exhibition, which continues through July 25.

I've been away from my computer for several days (more on that later), so I haven't yet had a chance to review how my French Open picks did in the early going.

How did I do with my first-round picks? Of the 64 first-round men's matches, I correctly picked the winner in 45. That works out to just over 70%. It's not the best I've ever done (at last year's U.S. Open, I picked over 73%), but it's pretty darn respectable, I think. And by the way, in one of my 19 misses, I couldn't have correctly picked the winner: When I made my picks, lucky loser and eventual first-round winner Hyung-Taik Lee hadn't even been placed in the draw.

As always, I didn't pick all of the women's first-round matches. Too many of the women's first-round matches pit unknown players against one another. See, e.g., Christina Wheeler vs. Marta Marrero. It's just too hard!

How are my projected quarterfinalists doing? I've waited so long to do this early(?) re-cap that many of the quarterfinal match-ups have already been set. Still, as for the men's draw—where the men's quarterfinalists won't be completely set for another day—six of my eight picks are still going strong. The two who aren't: top-seed Roger Federer and No. 6 Andre Agassi. I'll have more to say about this when I review all the men's quarterfinalists tomorrow, but I can't feel too bad about either of these. Federer lost to someone he really, really shouldn't have, and Agassi—well, I'm going to try to claim partial credit for that section of the draw. Stay tuned.

As the women's quarterfinalists were finalized today, I'll have more to say on that in a bit. The news there isn't quite as good....

How'd I do with the projected first-round upsets? I picked two first-round upsets on the men's side, and I was right about one. I—and every other tennis pundit on the planet—thought Juan-Carlos Ferrero, the injured No. 4 seed, would go down to Germany's Tommy Haas. It didn't happen. Ferrero did go down in the second round, though, to the unheralded Igor Andreev (who's still in the tourney!). Nevertheless, I correctly foresaw that Fab Santoro would take out fellow countryman and No. 32 seed Arnaud Clement in the first round. That match, by the way, was thrilling, with Santoro eventually prevailing 16-14 in the fifth set. I couldn't keep my eyes off the set.

I didn't pick any first-round women's upsets, and—in fact—there were only a handful....

What first-round upsets didn't I predict? There were several first-round upsets on the men's side, but only two actually took my breath away: Andre Agassi's loss to qualifier Jerome Haehnel and No. 16 Fernando Gonzalez's loss to qualifier Florian Mayer. I didn't pick X-man Xavier Malisse's upset of No. 16 Rainer Schuettler, but I had that match as a tasty match-up (and, in fact, I also noted that Schuettler's form was suspect). Partial credit? Other missed upsets: Julien Benneteau's win over No. 29 Max Mirnyi and Luis Horna's win over No. 18 Mark Philippoussis. I didn't have Mirnyi or Philippoussis going far in the tournament, so I won't kick myself too much about missing either player's first-round loss.

I didn't pick any first-round upsets on the women's side, and very few actually occurred. None of the upsets—Myriam Casanova over No. 22 Karolina Sprem; Stephanie Foretz over No. 26 Nathalie Dechy; Tatiana Perebiynis over No. 24 Jelena Dokic; and Marlene Weingartner over No. 27 Eleni Daniilidou—was very striking. Blame the seeding of 32 players for the boredom of the women's first round, ok?

How'd my other miscellaneous picks do? Pretty darn well, actually. Sadly enough, I correctly picked that legend Martina Navratilova would lose in the first round to Gisela Dulko. I also correctly forecast the first-round wins of qualifiers Alejandro Falla, Daniel Elsner, and Guillermo Garcia-Lopez as well as the first-round triumph of wild card Michael Llodra. And although I didn't get these picks right in the end, I also correctly saw that qualifier Potito Starace would be trouble for Dmitry Tursunov and that Juan Monaco, yet another qualifier, would be a tough opponent for American Alex Bogomolov, Jr.

So, in the end, I'm pretty darn pleased with my picks. In fact, if my picks for the women's draw had been as stellar as my men's picks, I'd be hitting overheads in my living room right now.

And, of course, it's been an awfully enjoyable tournament so far. I love those dirtballers.

As I sit back and look at my completed French Open men's draw, one thought keeps occurring to me: I could be wrong. I could be very, very wrong. Sigh. It's just that the draw is one of the oddest I've ever seen. Many of the real contenders find themselves in the same few sections of the draw, while other sections seem to be entirely free of real contenders. Egad. Anyway, here's my list of projected quarterfinalists:

Roger Federer (seeded #1) - I keep reading how Federer has a tough draw, but I just can't see that he'll have any trouble reaching the second week. He's got a lucky loser in the first round, the injured Nicolas Kiefer in the second round (I'm guessing), and former-champion-turned-struggler Gustavo Kuerten in the third (I'm pretty darn positive). I don't see Federer stumbling in any of those matches. In fact, I think his toughest match on the way to the quarters might well be in the Round of 16—against Italian up-and-comer Filippo Volandri. Volandri is good, but he's sure no Federer.

Marat Safin (#20) - It's incredibly foolish, I know, to pick the wildly inconsistent Safin to do anything but be wildly inconsistent. Plus, this section of the draw is downright jam-packed with good, good players: #8 David Nalbandian, #10 Sebastien Grosjean, #25 Ivan Ljubicic (who is one of my faves), and Felix Mantilla all find themselves here. I looked at the draw, picked the matches round by round, and I ended up with Safin advancing. Wish me luck.

Gaston Gaudio (unseeded) - I made my picks before I looked to see SI guru Jon Wertheim's picks. Lo and behold, he has the unseeded Gaudio reaching the semifinals. I don't have Gaudio going quite that far, but Wertheim's pick is definitely defensible. The "problem" in this section of the draw is that #3 Juan Carlos Ferrero is so injured that he'll probably withdraw before playing a set. And there's just no good reason to pick anyone else in this section of the draw—including Tommy Haas, David Ferrer, #14 Jiri Novak, #24 Jonas Bjorkman, and #29 Max Miryni. Gaudio's got the game on clay, and no one else really does. In my mind, the match for the quarterfinal spot may actually be in the second round, when Gaudio will likely face Novak. (I give another unseeded player, Ferrer, an outside chance of making it to the quarters [and even beyond].)

Lleyton Hewitt (#12) - Yeah, this truly is a fool's pick, I know. Hewitt's game—let alone his clay-court game—just isn't ideal these days. But this is one of those sections where, by rights, none of the players seems to be a deserving quarterfinal pick. So it's Hewitt, ok? Who else would you have me choose? There's #7 Rainer Schuettler, but his form is, um, not good right now. There's former champion Albert Costa (#26), one of my all-time favorite players, but he's hit-or-miss anymore. Who else? Victor Hanescu?

Carlos Moya (#5) - Coming off a win in Rome, and a good result in Monaco, Moya's the obvious pick here.

Guillermo Coria (#3) - Speaking of obvious picks...well, here's the most obvious of them all. Just look at this year-to-date record. He's the player to beat.

Andre Agassi (#6) - We haven't seen Agassi play much this year, but he always seems to show up (for the Slams, anyway) in top form. This is yet another section of the draw, by the way, that would be awesome—see, e.g., #9 Tim Henman, #18 Mark Philippoussis, #27 Vince Spadea—on a non-clay surface.

Juan Ignacio Chela (#22) - There are only two seeded players in this section, Chela and #2 Andy Roddick, who are plausible quarterfinalists. Paradorn Srichaphan (#13) doesn't really have a clay-court game, and #32 Arnaud Clement is likely to lose in the first round. I'm not counting Roddick out entirely, but my inner tennis voice tells me to go with a true clay-courter.

As for the rest of the tournament:

Semifinals: Federer vs. Hewitt(!); Coria vs. Chela(!).

Finals: Federer vs. Coria.

Champion: Coria.

And the miscellaneous picks:

First-round upsets: I like Haas over Ferrero, assuming the Spaniard plays; and Fabrice Santoro over #32 Arnaud Clement.

Just a handful of the other tasty first-round matches: Robin Soderling vs. #15 Sjeng Schalken; young Frenchman Richard Gasquet vs. Nalbandian; Guillermo Cañas vs. Gaudio; Xavier Malisse vs. Schuettler; Srichaphan vs. Tomas Berdych; and Irakli Labadze vs. Joachim Johansson. And there were still another half dozen or more first-round matches that I found downright vexing to pick....

Qualifiers and wild cards most likely to have an impact: I see qualifier Alejandro Falla and wild card Michael Llodra making it to the second round. In a first-round match-up of qualifiers, I like Daniel Elsner over Alexander Peya. I also like qualifier Guillermo Garcia-Lopez's chances to beat wild card Todd Reid.

Plus, although I'm not actually picking any of these qualifiers/wildcards to advance, several have a legitimate chance: Nicolas Almagro faces Kueren; Potito Starace meets Dmitry Tursunov; wildcard Julien Boutter faces the inconsistent #19 seed, Martin Verkerk; lucky loser Marc Lopez has a real chance against Christophe Rochus; and Juan Monaco could take down American Alex Bogomolov, Jr.

Enough talk. Let's watch some ball.

I had an awfully busy weekend, as I had to (unexpectedly) bring work home. Grr. The extra work left me little time to do my customary picks for the French Open, which begins tomorrow. But I'm a true fan, and I made time for what's really important—tennis.

Let's start with my picks for the women's quarterfinalists (as always, these are in the order that you'd see them from the top of the draw to the bottom):

Justine Henin-Hardenne (seeded #1) - We haven't seen Henin-Hardenne for several weeks due to some strange viral illness. As a consequence, we have no idea what form she's in. I doubt it could possibly matter, though. There's no one in this section of the draw who might even be a threat to an under-the-weather Henin-Hardenne. If the world No. 1 truly is in a sad state, I guess I'd go with #14 Paola Suárez as a back-up choice. My gut tells me I'm not going to need a back-up.

Vera Zvonareva (#10) - In my mind, this section of the draw will come down to Zvonareva or her compatriot, Nadia Petrova (#8). On the basis of recent form, particularly the Italian Open, I'm going with Zvonareva.

Amélie Mauresmo (#3) - Mauresmo has been the player of the clay-court season, winning both the Italian and the German Opens. With question marks next to so many of the other top names, this is surely Mauresmo's best shot ever to win a Grand Slam title. I like her chances a lot.

Lindsay Davenport (#5) - Until yesterday's debacle, Davenport has looked good, too. She ought to sail (or skate, if you're missing winter) through to the quarterfinals.

Svetlana Kuznetsova (#11) - I wish I had strong feelings about this pick. Kuznetsova looked good on the clay in both Rome and Berlin, and that's why I'm giving her the nod. There are definitely other contenders here, though, including Anastasia Myskina (#6) and Karolina Sprem (#22). If I had a ranch, I probably wouldn't bet it on the outcome of this section of the draw....

Fabiola Zuluaga (#23) - Ok, I've learned my lesson: Zuluaga's got game. Still, if Venus Williams (#4) were healthy (she has a bum ankle), I'd be picking her to emerge from this section. As it is, I like both Zuluaga's clay-court game and her chances. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Jennifer Capriati (#7) - Capriati's in form, and there's no one in this section of the draw who could possibly trouble her.

Serena Williams (#2) - I'm looking forward to an entertaining match in the Round of 16 between Williams and the ever-young veteran Conchita Martinez (#20). That said, it's still so easy to see Williams advancing to the quarterfinals and beyond.

Here's the rest of the story:

Semifinals: Henin-Hardenne vs. Mauresmo; Zuluaga(!) vs. S. Williams.

Final: Mauresmo vs. S. Williams.

Champion: Mauresmo.

And how about a few miscellaneous picks?

First-round upsets: Nah, I'm not picking any. I'm sure some will happen, but only a couple of the top seeds must cope with any obvious threat in the opening round. Plus, I'm chicken. If you forced me to pick an upset, though, I guess I might look to Flavia Pennetta to take out #19 Anna Smashnova-Pistolesi.

Other tasty first-round matches: Henin-Hardenne vs. French veteran Sandrine Testud; Nicole Pratt vs. Slovak Tina Pisnik; Myskina vs. Alicia Molik; Katarina Srebotnik vs. Cara Black; Tamarine Tanasugarn vs. V. Williams; and Gisela Dulko vs. Martina Navratilova. (By the way, I think Martina's going down in the first round.)

I'll be back in a few minutes with my men's picks.

Two completely unrelated items:

All hail Tivo! It helped slay the television rerun, now mercifully in decline (link via PVRblog).

Baby, my favorite four-legged creature, asked me to post this: The existence of so many dog breeds, and scientists' new ability to map those breeds via their DNA, may lead to new treatments for human diseases. What I found particularly interesting is that the DNA analyses suggest there are really only four major groups of dog breeds—guarding, herding, hunting, and ancient breeds (which are not that far removed from wolves).

Now maybe some scientist can tell me just exactly what the "mix" is in Baby's black Lab-mix. I'm thinking it might be cherub.

posted by Jimmy  # 10:26 PM

Yet another silly meme (via Reflections in D Minor):

1. Grab the nearest CD.
2. Put it in your CD player.
3. Skip to Song 3.
4. Post the first verse in your blog/journal along with these instructions. Don’t name the band or the album title.

I sucked the moon.
I spoke too soon.
And how much did it cost?
I was dropped from moonbeams.
And sailed on shooting stars.

Who knows?

Catch of the Day:

I've fallen hard for the Art Addict (link via Modern Art Notes). And if you're at all interested in contemporary art, especially collecting it, you might (want to) fall, too.

Kate of The Kitchen Cabinet has been playing Clue with the news.

I'm enjoying spargelzeit this year. Unfortunately, unlike fans in Germany, I don't get to enjoy my fresh asparagus with the aid of an oompah band.

It just seems like the right week, hmmm, to point out Absolut's guide to planning a commitment ceremony (link via Queer Day). The guide is fun and also seems to be pretty darn useful. One thing is clear, though: Getting hitched can be a lot of work. By the way, I probably wouldn't go with the appletini for the announcement party....

posted by Jimmy  # 6:45 PM

Manic Tuesday-ness:

• Michael at Cruft has coined a word that any TiVo freak will understand: passkilling (link via PVRblog). Passkilling occurs "when someone cancels a TiVo request to change channels and record a Season Pass show," causing the TiVo user to wonder why his favorite show hasn't recorded. Smart children, it seems, are often passkillers.
  
  Maybe The Word Spy will start seeing this term here and there.
  
  
• Is Las Vegas the most American city of all? Marc Cooper suggests it just might be:

  In a city where the only currency is currency, there is a table-level democracy of luck. Las Vegas is perhaps the most color-blind, class-free place in America. As long as your cash or credit line holds out, no one gives a damn about your race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, address, family lineage, voter registration or even your criminal arrest record. As long as you have chips on the table, Vegas deftly casts you as the star in an around-the-clock extravaganza. For all of America's manifold unfulfilled promises of upward mobility, Vegas is the only place guaranteed to come through--even if it's for a fleeting weekend. You may never, in fact, surpass the Joneses, but with the two-night, three-day special at the Sahara, buffet and show included, free valet parking and maybe a comped breakfast at the coffee shop, you can certainly live like them for seventy-two hours--while never having to as much as change out of your flip-flops, tank top or NASCAR cap.

  (Link via ArtsJournal's Daily Art News.)
  
  
• It sounds like Ernie the Attorney is as happy with his Gmail account as I am. I hereby adopt his thoughts by reference. (Did that sound legal enough for you?)
  
  
• My former home, and favorite city, isn't sure what to think of Anne Rice's move to the burbs, as the New York Times notes. It's sure hard for me to imagine her living anywhere but the Garden District.
  
  
• I wonder what it's like to live in an exclave (link via The Volokh Conspiracy). I can't think of anywhere that I might realistically move in order to find out, though....
  
  
• Darren Barefoot, who is traveling in South Africa, witnessed a lion kill. Here's a taste:

  The first rule of open Land Rover wildlife viewing is that you DON"T STAND UP IN THE VEHICLE. This 'breaks the profile' of the vehicle. To the animals (and the big cats in particular), you stop looking like a massive, growling beast and start looking like a tasty treat.

  By the way, the actual tasty treat was a honey badger.
  
  
• ABC's Alias won't be returning until January 2005 (link via Fresh Hell, where Kim—by the way—suggests a bright side). I can't imagine how I'm going to last that long without my regular fix of Sidney Bristow!
  
  
• A post by Lily of The Kitchen Cabinet reminds me to complain that no one in Philadelphia seems to understand the concept of standing to the right and walking to the left. When I first moved to the city, I often got worked up about this escalator behavior. But I've been meditating, and I no longer fume every morning when I get off the train....
  
  
• Golly! Dr. Renee Richards thinks the International Olympic Committee should not be allowing transsexuals to compete (link via The Sports Economist).
  

I enjoyed this New York Times piece describing how The Payphone Project evolved from offbeat art project to internet utility. And if you visit the Project, be sure to check out the pictures of North Dakota payphones. The photos—including my personal fave—really seem to capture the beautiful emptiness of the state.

I've navigated more than a month of dieting without experiencing any serious cravings or regret. Today, though, the flatmate and I spent the day in Amish Country, and I really, really, really wanted a shoo-fly pie. Not so much that I was in danger of actually buying one, but just enough that I could almost taste all that sweet, gooey yumminess in my mouth.

Now you know the true story: pie is my weakness.

My little patch of suburbia is a cicada-free zone, but that's apparently going to change soon. If you just can't wait for the noisy invasion, the Washington Post's special report may tide you over for awhile. I'm already hooked on the Post's Cicada-cam, which is watching the action in a suburban Maryland lawn (link via The Kitchen Cabinet).

Food Network über-foodie Alton Brown believes (see entry of May 7, 2004) the American obesity epidemic can be traced, largely, to two packaged-foods ingredients: hydrogenated (or partially hydrogenated) fats and high fructose corn syrup. Brown, who is trying to lose 20-plus pounds, is removing both from his diet. He's also vowing to eat "oily fish, green leafy vegetables, legumes, nuts, and soy protein" on a regular basis.

As for my own diet, which I began about a month ago, I've managed to lose 13.5 pounds. I have about five more to go. I've increased my exercise and reduced the carbhohydrates that I intake (but, no, I'm not on that trendy diet). I've been successful, I think, because I've somehow been able to regard food as just fuel—and not as something that might be enjoyed or even relished.

I'll take Potpourri for $1,000, Alex:

• As I've said before, Roger Clemens is The Man. In fact, he's turned an entire team (city?) around (link via The Sports Economist). I want to quit my job and become a full-time Clemens groupie.
  
  
• I'm with MAN about this: Isn't it more than a bit strange that the New York Times is so pleased to have a new culture editor without any particular cultural expertise? I expect better out of our major cultural city's major paper.
  
  
• Has public discourse really come to this? In defending his views about the Ninth Amendment, and the Supreme Court's recent decision holding that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, libertarian professor and Volokh conspirator Randy Barnett closes with this nugget:
  
  PS: I feel awkward saying this, but in case my persistent defense of Lawrence has raised any suspicion that I am making an argument from self-interest or merely to satisfy my own personal preferences, I am as purely heterosexual as a man can be.
  
  Well, yes, Professor Barnett, you should feel awkward closing a long, reasoned post with something so asinine. Your argument, and anyone else's, for gosh sakes, ought to rise or fall based on the content of it. Are you seriously suggesting that, if you were gay, a reader might reasonably discount your views on this subject? I hope not.
  
  Update (5/16/2004): I'm happy to say that the objectionable P.S. now seems to have been edited out of Professor Barnett's post.

Bookslut's Jessa Crispin has some interesting correspondence today. In her honor, here's a letter of my own:

Dear Fellow Train Passenger:

I understand why you sat next to me tonight on a nearly empty train, crowding us together on a two-seater when there were all those empty two- and even three-seaters in the car. I'm looking particularly good today. And, well, my cologne is nice. Plus, I'm sure you were thinking the train would fill up at the next stop, when all those tiresome Center City commuters normally get on. It's awful, I know, to be stuck in the middle of one of those three-seaters—especially when you're stuck between two grumpy, exhausted corporate types with their briefcases and their Blackberries and their elbows flying over their infernal laptops. (Who needs to do that much work on a 25-minute train ride?) It's like flying coach across the country and being seated between two very large circus performers.

But, um, when we got to the next stop, and it was apparent the train was going to be strangely empty, why didn't you just get up and move into one of those empty two-seaters? Why, oh, why did you sit there? Didn't you see me there all jammed up against the window, hoping for a rare bit of personal space? And, later, why didn't you move when you realized that you were going to keep nodding off and drifting ever closer to your handsome, sweet-smelling neighbor? Why, why, why?

Knuckleballers are quirky, sexy, and—sadly—a dying breed in baseball, as a swell piece from The New Yorker details (link via Royals Baseball). One highlight: How the knuckleball took one player from the Savannah College of Art and Design to the Boston Red Sox organization. I bet art school is actually good preparation for being a crazy knuckleballer....

Monday Miscellany:

• I think The Goatbelt ought to work in a link to this picture of a goat balancing on a stick.
  
  
• Unexpectedly (for me, anyway), the changes at Blogger are newsworthy. Relatedly, Ernie of little.yellow.different. has some interesting thoughts about New Blogger. (Ok, after this post, I promise not to venture again into meta-blogging for a loooooong time!)
  
  
• A good chunk of my four-and-one-half regular readers (hi, Mom!) are non-lawyers. And, for reasons related to my job, I don't blog here about legal issues. Still, I think it's safe for me just to note that Professor Larry Solum of Legal Theory Blog has been in some kind of theorizing frenzy since Saturday. He has written thoughtful, detailed posts here, here, here, here, and here.
  
  I went to an excellent law school, and I don't feel like I missed out on much there, but these posts sure have me wishing I could sit in on one of Professor Solum's seminars. Solum has been awfully impressive the past few days. Obviously, if you're at all interested in legal theory, you should be reading Legal Theory Blog.
  
  
• Civilization is surely crumbling: The first season of The Dukes of Hazzard is about to be released on DVD (link via Kottke).
  
  
• The Sports Economist is keeping tabs on a debate about whether it makes economic sense for Rice University to continue to play NCAA Division 1-A football. See here and here.
  
  
• Heaneyland! reports on some adverb trouble.

Blogger, which I use to to produce the mess that is the Garden, introduced some pretty dramatic changes tonight. Most of the changes are of the behind-the-scenes variety, but you may be seeing some new things here in the days and weeks to come. I certainly have some new choices, anyway.

Update: Earlier tonight, after the rollout of the new Blogger, I had some problems with the formatting of my comments. If you stopped by during that time, you may well have noticed that some comments resembled e.e. cummings poems. Although the timing of all this suggested that the new Blogger might be interacting in an unsavory way with my Haloscan-supported comments, it turns out the problem was traceable to some tinkering undertaken by the good folks at Haloscan. Everything should be fine now.

Just in time for Mother's Day, the Social Security Administration has announced the most popular baby names for 2003 (link via Boing Boing). My favorite name—James, ahem—held steady at No. 18. Just a little over a decade ago, James was still a Top 10 name, but now room has to be made for all the Tylers, Ryans, and Ethans, I guess. Sigh.

Happy Mother's Day!

To get into the right spirit for the day, check out this Washington Post slideshow of animals and their babies. Roberta of Artblog likes the African river hippos, but I'm partial to the manatees.

Another Fifth Sentence Meme (via Wonder Boy):

1. Go into your blog archives.
2. Find your 23rd post (or the closest to it).
3. Find the fifth sentence (or closest to it).
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.

The result is from this post, dated November 25, 2002: As frequent viewers of Trading Spaces know, Hildi has definitely botched her share of bedrooms, dining rooms, and kitchens.

This Vanity Fair correction made my day:

EDITOR'S NOTE: In the portfolio "To Be Young and Royal," featured in the September 2003 issue, Prince Louis-Alphonse of Bourbon's title was incompletely given. He is His Royal Highness Prince Louis-Alfonse of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou, an heir to the House of Bourbon. Prince Louis-Alfonse is a direct descendant of both King Louis XIV of France and King Alphonse XIII of Spain.

(Info via Felix of MemeFirst.)

As an Arizona Republic story indicates, gay and lesbian Star Trek fans—tired of waiting for a gay character—continue to take things into their own hands (link via Queer Day). By the way, although I guess it's true that there have been no openly gay characters on any of Star Trek's various iterations, I've always read one episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, "The Outcast," as a fairly pro-gay statement. In that episode, Commander Riker falls for Soren, a member of the andryogynous J'Naii race. This love is forbidden because the J'Naii disapprove of gendered sexual relationships. Riker (and, for that matter, the episode in general) disapproves of the these arbitrary restrictions, and he takes action. I read the episode as an endorsement of the idea that sexual freedom is a basic human right.

Of course, as with any good story, there are probably alternative readings. It's a bit, shall we say, heterosexist for the episode to require that Soren come to think of herself as "female" before love can truly blossom with Riker. On the other hand, Riker was attracted to Soren before the alien asserted a particular gender preference for herself, and he didn't go off on some self-hating plot detour (or seek out counseling from Troi). So, in my mind, although it's not quite Torch Song Trilogy, "The Outcast" gives Trekkies reason to think that sexual freedom is de rigueur in the multicultural, Federation-of-Planets future that Star Trek portrays.

Food for Thought: A story in today's New York Times notes how the current craze for low-carb diets has taken its toll on Krispy Kreme Doughnuts. Are Americans really passing up those "Hot Doughnuts Now" signs?

Friday Non-Five::

• I'm sorry to see the last of the Friday Five, which ended its two-and-one-half year run this week. Now I'll have no good excuse to ramble on and on and on and on and on about myself on Fridays. Dang!
  
  
• Jessa Crispin's Bookslut is celebrating its second anniversary. Best wishes to my favorite webzine! The new issue of Bookslut, by the way, contains a review of Steve Almond's new book, which I just mentioned yesterday. I'm definitely going to add Candyfreak to the gigantic stacks of unread books on, by, and—sigh—near my nightstand....
  
  
• This weekend, Tyler Green of Modern Art Notes is going to keep track of all the speculation over who bought that ugly Picasso for $104M.
  
  
• I'm not really inclined to read an entire novel at my computer, but if I were . . . I'd hang out at Read Print, a free, online library of public-domain books, poems, short stories, and articles (link via Kottke). May I recommend E.M. Forster's A Room with a View and Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Kubla Khan?"

3AM Magazine's interview with Candyfreak author Steven Almond is lots of fun (link via Bookslut). As far as I'm concerned, any discussion that includes Idaho Spud Bars is a winner. One quibble: Despite what Almond says, lime Lifesavers are to-die-for.

Almond raves about regional candy, one of my favorite subjects. Please let me recommend the Cherry Mash. (I can hardly believe it, but I don't seem to have ever mentioned my Cherry Mash addiction here on the Garden.) Yum.

How did I spend my Thursday afternoon? Suffering through the Phillies' 7-4 loss to the Cardinals. And "suffering" is the key word. I got to the park, enjoyed a beverage, and found my pretty sweet seat (more on that in a bit). It was all downhill from there.

Unfortunately, the Cards scored five runs in the top of the first inning, making it seem certain that the hometown fans were in for a long day. At the same time, I realized that my eyes were getting more and more irritated. I'm not sure if it was all the gunk (debris from the now-demolished Vet?) blowing around a windy Citizens Bank Park (The Vault); or if it was sweaty run-off from my sunscreened forehead (a problem I've had before); or some combination of the the gunk, sunscreen, and abundant pollen. But I spent the first five innings blinking madly, squinting out of one eye and then the other at the game, wondering if I looked like some kind of freak.

And, actually, it turned out that I did look like some kind of freak. After the fifth inning, I took myself to a men's room mirror and found two of the reddest eyes I've ever seen. I imagine it looked like I'd been bawling about the Cards' five-run outburst. (Maybe that's why the woman seated next to me kept looking at me like I was some kind of threat to the baseball order.) I'm a big fan, but—I swear—I never actually cry at the game. I spent the rest of the game splashing water in irritated eyes and watching the game from shady locales. My eyes only stopped hurting when I was in the shade and was looking at something shady. This is not a good combo when you're at an afternoon ballgame. Just so you know.

Anyway, I managed to survive the game. As soon as I got on the subway, my eyes started feeling better. A half an hour later, when the flatmate met my train with Visine and some tissues, my eyes weren't even red! Is it possible I'm allergic to the Phillies' new home? Or Jim Thome's new cologne? Maybe it's just Scott Rolen?

Setting aside the red, watery eyes and the strange stares from seatmates, I have good things to say about Section 133, Row 22, Seat 7. Unlike my previous experience in what's billed as "third base territory" (a/k/a left field), Section 133 is actually near third base. It offers a great view, is close to the grass (maybe too close for my eyes' comfort), and you can see every part of the stadium you might be interested in. My only quibble: When the seats filled up in the section, it was difficult to find an unobstructed sight line to home plate. (I wasn't even sitting behind particularly tall fans.) The search for the perfect seat continues.

Happy Blogiversary to How Appealing, the appellate attorney's best friend.

Still heady from the Flyers' win last night, I'm thinking about sports today:

A British sports historian suggests that Roger Bannister reached that important psychological barrier nearly 200 years too late (link via The Sports Economist).

I love my sumo, and my sumo news, but I absolutely have to draw the line at goat sumo. Egad! Still, I wonder what The Goatbelt would say about it....

posted by Jimmy  # 7:09 PM

Would you like to see a visual representation of Google's news aggregator? Of course you would (link via LYD). The stories on Newsmap are color-coded by topic and, interestingly, sized by the number of articles on the subject. So just now, for instance, the headline "Sharon Sets New US Talks After Gaza Plan Rejected" was screaming, while "Traditional Fishing Damages Coral Reefs" was oh-so-teeny-tiny. As the proprietor of the site indicates, Newsmap "is not thought to display an unbiased view of the news[;] on the contrary it is thought to ironically accentuate the bias of it." Thought-provoking stuff.

P.S.: Happily, "Roenick is overtime hero for Flyers" is a big, big headline this morning on Newsmap. Let's go, Flyers!

Tuesday randomness:

1. Have you checked out Kinja yet? Kinja is a weblog portal that allows you to set up a personal digest of the blogs you regularly read. It sort of allows you to get the advantages of a newsreader without having to mess with RSS and XML or, well, some ugly newsreader. As an example, here's what I'll call the GreenGourd Kinja Mix, a digest of (nearly all) the Fertile Blogs listed in my blogroll. Cool, huh? In fact, I think I'll add a permanent link to the GreenGourd Mix in the blogroll. Feel free to use it. (If you make your own digest, please be sure to include the Garden!)

Kinja also offers Editor's Digests, which feature some of the most popular blogs in a variety of categories. There are digests for readers interested in technology, food, music, books, and more. There's also a Showcase digest that features some of the best-known general-purpose blogs.

I think Kinja is awfully, awfully useful.

2. As Reality Blurred notes, Brad Cotter was named on Saturday as the winner of this season's Nashville Star contest on USA Network. Would it be bad form if I, ahem, mentioned that I thought from the start that Cotter was the most talented of the contestants? If so, would it be worse form to mention that I also thought that George Canyon, who finished second, was the second most-talented contestant? If so, would it be the worst form imaginable if I reminded you that I correctly picked last year's winner, Buddy Jewell, from the start, too?

It's obvious that I ought to head a Nashville studio, huh?

P.S.: With the win on Star, Cotter earned a Sony recording contract. His first single, "I Meant To," shipped yesterday. I've already downloaded it, as well as singles from George Canyon and oddball third-place finisher Matt Lindahl, from—hee—Wal-Mart.com. Cotter's is by far the best single, but each of the three is worth a listen (and 88 cents!). I genuinely hope, and think, that Cotter is going to be huge.

3. Last night, someone reached the Garden via a Google search for "hemorrhoidal history." And, yes, I've actually used that very phrase here.

4. An interesting Washington Post article discusses how the owner of Oaklawn Park insured himself, just in the nick of time, against an increasingly likely—and expensive—proposition (link via The Sports Economist).

5. If, for some reason, you're feeling bad about your station in life, check out the Global Rich List (link via the always-excellent Paperfrog). It'll help put things in perspective.

Caveat: Not everyone in Oklahoma is as interested in the springtime weather as I always have been (link via Dooce). And when the tornadoes are close, anybody with even a little bit of sense starts to think about living somewhere safer—on the San Andreas Fault, maybe; or Erie-freaking-lake-effect-snow, Pennsylvania; or on some frequently-hurricane-swept West Indian island. On some spring nights in Oklahoma, Survivor's Glee truly is the best you can hope for.

P.S.: It's a disaster-themed evening in Blogistan.

As I mentioned a few days ago, I'm going to be following WeatherBug Storm Chase 2004 this week. Storm Chase 2004 chronicles a week of storm chasing by a meteorologist and a fifth-grade science teacher. The search officially began today in Oklahoma City. Unfortunately, the first part of the week looks to be a bit dry. That doesn't sound like the early-May Oklahoma that I remember....

Speaking of the Oklahoma that I remember, though, the Storm Chase 2004 meteorologist, Mark Hoekzema, drove to Oklahoma City from Maryland. Oklahoma—or, at least, the eastern two-thirds that he saw from the interstate—wasn't at all what he expected:

Oklahoma really surprised me. I had the picture of wide open farms and fields of crops, but for the most part, up until Oklahoma City, it is rolling hills and a lot of trees. [An accompanying picture taken with a camera phone] shows some of the wildflowers we saw lining the highway most of the trip. Overall it was very green as opposed to the brown fields and grasslands I had pictured.

Oklahoma just needs a good public relations specialist, I guess. When I tell people that I grew up in the green hills of northeastern Oklahoma, they're suspicious. I try, often unsuccessfully, to convince them that my Oklahoma doesn't resemble a Martian landscape. Sure, there's some red dirt in the western third of the state, but Hoekzema saw the verdant Oklahoma that I know.

Of course, Oklahoma will need some spring thunderstorms to remain green. Maybe Storm Chase 2004 will find some later this week....

Currently filling my mind:

1. This is how I feel when I need a haircut.

2. Costa of The Critical 'I' asks a very pertinent question: Why is anyone still writing checks at the supermarket? Unless the culprit is over 70, I have no sympathy....

3. This word from the Kristy McNichol Blog is poignant:

Okay, here's the way it's going to be. This blog is going bye-bye because it drives me nuts. First, Kristy McNichol isn't and probably won't ever generate any more news and so I have to dwell on the past. Second, though I could always find stuff to blog, I don't think it's a wise use of my time. Third, I want to start an on-line jingle business for people to use my music and singing voice in their web sites. This doesn't mean I don't like Kristy McNichol any less....

For what it's worth, I wish I could time-travel back 25 or so years and retrieve my Kristy and Jimmy McNichol LP. I wonder whatever happened to it.

4. Design Observer has some thoughts about the new Iraqi flag. That post, by the way, prompted me to search for the site of the North American Vexillological Association. I'm tempted to join just so I can see what happens at NAVA's annual meeting.

5. An interesting article in yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer discusses how it's actually possible to die from a broken heart (registration req'd).

Blender Magazine and VH1 have joined forces to produce a list of the 50 worst songs of the past three decades. The Top (Bottom?) 10 songs:

1. "We Built This City," Starship (1985).
2. "Achy, Breaky Heart," Billy Ray Cyrus (1992).
3. "Everybody Have Fun Tonight," Wang Chung (1986).
4. "Rollin'," Limp Bizkit (2000).
5. "Ice Ice Baby," Vanilla Ice (1990).
6. "The Heart of Rock & Roll," Huey Lewis and the News (1984).
7. "Don't Worry, Be Happy," Bobby McFerrin (1988).
8. "Party All the Time," Eddie Murphy (1985).
9. "American Life," Madonna (2003).
10. "Ebony and Ivory," Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder (1982).

You can see the first 25 and the next 25 at Blender's website. (For some reason, a press release for the related Blender/VH1 special provides a subtly-different list of the Top 50.)

With a couple of exceptions, I have no major quibbles with the Top 10 or, for that matter, the Top 50. These are definitely some truly dreadful songs. Sure, I would've thought that "Achy, Breaky Heart" was clearly worse than the also-repulsive "We Built This City," but I can see the other argument. Blender marks the Starship song up (down?) because it's knowingly hypocritical, and, yeah, there's that. Also, I'm a bit surprised that Bette Midler's "From a Distance" is only No. 14? Midler has a real voice, but you wouldn't know it from "Distance." And don't get me started on those saccharine, preposterous lyrics. Another candidate for moving up to the Top 10: Mr. Mister's "Broken Wings." It's nauseating.

Other minor quibbles:

• I really don't think the Beatles' "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da," ranked at No. 48, is one of the worst 50 songs of the past 30 years. I mean, really. Don't the list-makers remember Charlene's "I've Never Been to Me," a song that spent several weeks at No. 3 on the U.S. charts in 1982? (My family heard that song on the radio so many times during a 1982 vacation to Yellowstone that it became a shared joke for awhile.) I'm sure you remember it—unless you're exceptionally skilled at repressing true awful-ness. I've been to Georgia and California and anywhere I could run . . . I've been to paradise, but I've never been to me. Twenty-plus years later, I'm still trying to figure out what the lyrics mean. Is "I've Never Been to Me" really better than "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da?" Nah, I didn't think so.
  
  
• Yeah, as Blender says, Meat Loaf's "I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)" (#44) is silly and over the top. Does that have to be bad? When "I'd Do Anything" would come on the radio circa 1993, I couldn't help but sing along. I still would. Sue me.
  
  
• I thought "Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm" (#31 by the Crash Test Dummies) was fresh and smart when it came out in 1994. I haven't really changed my mind.
  
  
• There's no way John Mayer's "Your Body is a Wonderland," #28, is one of the worst 50 songs of our era. Haven't Blender and VH1 heard Mayer's most recent album? That entire album is worse than "Wonderland."
  
  
• Maybe it's just because 1984 was my day, but I really like Corey Hart's "I Wear My Sunglasses at Night" (#23). That song was what 1984 felt like to me. Really.

As I said, I do have a couple of major quibbles:

• Simon & Garfunkel's "The Sounds of Silence" (#42) isn't one of the worst 50 songs of the rock era. In fact, it might well be one of the 50 best. The harmonies are exquisite. Blender criticizes the song as sounding like a satire of a mid-1960s folk song. Well, hello, Blender: "Silence" was released in 1964. It sounds like what it was. And when it sounded like that, it was fresh. Blender's criticism is like saying that early disco is bad because the genre later stagnated. Blender should take its postermodern irony and stick it where it belongs—somewhere after 1968. Hmph.
  
  
• And, finally, what prompted me to write this post at all is this: I'm here to defend Wang Chung's "Everybody Have Fun Tonight" (# 3). Blender says the song is "one of history's leasy convivial party songs." Well, I dispute that. Maybe, again, it's just that we're talking about my day, but Wang Chung really captured the, um, sound of play in the mid 1980s. Sure, as the magazine suggests, there are some dark elements to the lyrics, but—believe me—club-goers were thinking some dark things in 1986. We were having fun, but we knew there were some obvious dangers (HIV, nuclear war). Regardless, I dare you to play "Everybody Have Fun Tonight" and not smile and get moving. It's fun and edgy, and there can't be anything wrong with that as a combination. Plus, Blender, if you want to pick on some insipid party song, how did you miss "Walking on Sunshine" by Katrina & the Waves? That's the song that made us roll our eyes in the mid-1980s. Hmph, again.

Like many people with a Blogger account, I've been playing around with my new Gmail address. Gmail, as you surely know, is Google's new email (ad)venture. (Google owns Blogger.) I haven't received enough email at my Gmail address to have gotten a real feel for the service and its features. (Email me!) When I do, I may blog a little about it. The preliminary question, though, is whether to be concerned about any loss of privacy due to Gmail's ability to target ads to me based on words in my email. There are two schools of thought, of course. (For a particularly unnerving account, see this post from John Battelle's Searchblog.) I'm inclined to view Gmail as I do TiVo: Yes, there's a theoretical possibility that some kind of abuse could occur (particularly if Google decided to correlate a user's email with his Google searches), but the commercial risks to Google are probably so high that it wouldn't actually undertake any action that would creep out too many users.

Still, there's an additional ethical/privacy concern here. I'm willing to risk a little of my own privacy for a good, useful service, but do I have any right to expose my correspondents' words to Gmail's prying eyes? Of course, if my correspondents were squeamish, they'd have the option of not emailing me. But what if that's the only email address I've given them? Or what if they don't know about Gmail? Even if they know about Gmail, what if they simply fail notice that that's my address? I may consent to some small loss of privacy when I sign up for Gmail, but my correspondents haven't. What are my ethical obligations here?

Would you email me at a Gmail account?