Puppy's in a Cona

I know, I know, it's serious.

I didn't go to the Gaiman signing, and will have to settle for reading a non-uniquely dedicated copy of his latest, because my very finely inbred Boston Terrier had another eye problem. No usual tomato redness, corneal dystrophy, ulcer, or cyst, this new irritation included a never before seen phenomenon: a rheumy blue cast over his whole right eye- the one with the most other troubles if you must know. In our attempts to keep him from blindness and maintain the cuteness standard to which we've become accustomed, I ran him to the vet's and spent the evening supervising his 6 different eyedrop administrations and looking for improvement.

E voila- today the red is gone. The rheum remains, and I have hope that this is another temporary and correctable, though expensive and surely uncomfortable, ailment caused by the chronic instability of the opticus bostonian.

People around the blogosphere are talking (typing) about the New York Times who this week put its op-ed columnists behind a premium subscription wall, thus guaranteeing- to most bloggy minds- that they will dwindle into insignificance. I dislike Krugman who distorts facts and Dowd who doesn't use them and to whose acclaimed wit I am sadly immune. I find Rich boringly predictable and unthoughtful in his opinions, too, though I often like Kristof and Brooks and sometimes Friedman and Tierney and very occasionally Herbert. But I will care for none of them when I can no longer read them or share them for less than 50 bucks per annum. Of course, John Tabin is doing what he can to help defray costs.

As I've said to friends and other unlucky listeners, I'd happily put serious cash on the barrelhead for a site where I could get trustworthy facts. Other online commenters echo the sentiment.

Vodkapundit on the newly announced (synchronous?) 500 job cuts from the NYT: Opinions are cheap. Everybody has one and, as the blogosphere has shown, it doesn't take any superhuman skill to express an opinion in a readable way. Reporting is expensive. Not everyone has the time to go out and find stories. Not everyone can afford a research staff. Not everyone has the skill to develop and maintain useful contacts... But is it really in their best interest to wring extra money out of Maureen Dowd, if they're going to cut back on the reporters who do the only work there worth paying for? Read the whole thing.

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds in a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt posted on RadioBlogger (how's that for new media confluence?) said: I think...the New York Times thinks it's going to make money selling op-eds, but hard news reporting is the killer at [app] for news media organizations. If they want to come up with opinion, they're competing with guys like me, and we can kick Paul Krugman's butt any day. If they do hard news gathering, and they actually report what's happening, and they report it straight and fast, they can go toe to toe with blogs pretty darn well.

The conversation began with discussion of Katrina and the preparations for Rita, not only in Louisiana but in Houston where evacuations are beginning. Hugh points out how the Houston Chronicle has tooled up its blog apparatus which combined with a round-up page of important information and links and its interactive forums will provide real time, on-the-scene usefulness rather than the canned videos we all weary of seeing and the fatuous talking heads providing traumatized commentary. The Chronicle will be my first stop for updates, but that's after my storm novena (no pun intended) that Rita be persuaded to amend her wickedness for a different course and a milder aspect.