that you can feel the breeze? New Scientist has had an interesting run of late: an almost organismic joy in the US election of a Democratic Congress, a massive attack on anyone who might suggest liberal policies on abortion, stem cell research, and gun laws, a gloating self-approving issue following Virginia Tech, and a series of Bush bashing articles that make it seem like Bush Derangement Syndrome is really an illness. The editorial bias is so strong I'm making the kids read it to learn to extract data from bullshit. Best Worst example so far: in the March 17 issue, on page 42, you find this gem:

For example, Hirschfield found that by the age of 3 most children already attribute significance to skin color. In 1993, he showed a group of children a drawing of a chubby black child dressed as a policeman, followed by photos of several adults each of whom had two fo the three traits: being black, chubby, and dressed as a policeman. Asked to decide which person was the boy as a grown-up, most children chose a black adult even through he was not overnight or minus a police uniform. "Kids appear to believe," says Hirschfield, "that race is more important than other physical differences in determining what sort of person one is."

Read it again. Yep, not only did someone say that, but someone apparently funded research to see if children believe skin color is mutable, and the writer quoted that with no comments at all. My kids both read it and asked if me if this was a joke article. (Editor -maybe Hirschfield is just childless and thinks 3 year olds are stupid? Thro that's not much of an excuse.) They have not only exceeded Bob Parks in political correctness - a minor miracle in its own right - but set a new standard on stupidity in what claims to be a science rag.