Glenn's site seems to be down at the moment, so I'll link to it here:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/29/new-column-conscientious-judge-railroaded-for-denying-restraining-order-based-on-false-domestic-violence-charges/

In this case, a judge was faced with granting a restraining order or not. He had evidence the "domestic violence" it was based on was a false accusation. He needed to find out if he was going to place the children with a mother who might be capable of harming herself and making false accusations to the police, or placing the children with a father who might be capable of doing violence to the mother.

Pretty much everyone agrees the judge made the right decision.

Still the judge was suspended for his actions, which were, in court, behind a privacy curtain, to ask the women to remove her pants so that he could examine her wounds and compare them to a prior incident in which she had admitted cutting herself and making a false accusation against her husband.

So Carol Lloyd, has Glenn Sacks defamed feminism again? Should this judge have been suspended? Did he make the right call? Were his actions proper? Are false allegations of DV a common and abused tactic, and should we as a society put up with that?

There's a lot to talk about here. Maybe not as important as your bronzer.

Scroll down on the main page for Broadsheet's tip line.

I am skeptical. People have been basking in the sun for millions of years and using sunblock and Vitamin D pills for less than a hundred. Sure, a few people have also probably been dying of sun cancer for millions of years. But personally, I'll take the risk of my skin overreacting to sunlight so I can produce my own Vitamin D over the risk of replacing my native systemic self-protections with chemical ones that someone is trying to sell me.

Popping vitamin D pills is both cheap and safe, says Schwartz, and may prove to have not only a therapeutic effect but a preventative one as well.

He forgot to add that vitamin D isn't 100% safe. You can ruin your kidneys if you take more than your body needs, and then it could kill you.

It's not like vitamin C where an overdose will come out in your pee.

I've discovered through trial and error that I need to do BOTH -- take vitamin D AND exercise outdoors with part of my body uncovered by sunscreen -- in order to keep my estrogen-sensitive autoimmune illness from flaring up.

Taking vitamin D AND getting sun exposure once a week seems to work better for me doing either one alone.

Since most breast cancers are sensitive to estrogen, I'm not surprised that the things I do to stay healthy are also correlated with a reduced risk of breast cancer.

Good lord, one more dingbat article like this and I am giving up on Salon. This article implies in the headline that exposure to sunlight is a good thing after all ("drop that bronzer!") and then admits, two paragraphs down, that it's not such a good thing after all. Nowhere does it mention why exposure to sun is a concern -- skin cancer, some forms of which are at least as deadly as some forms of breast cancer. Nor does it make any effort to actually weigh the benefits against the risks. (How much reduction in breast cancer risk, vs. how much increase in skin cancer risk?) Then it asserts that vitamin pills are just as good as sunlight -- introducing yet a third variable without making any attempt to acknowledge the resulting complications (to which other posters have now alluded).

As far as I can tell, this piece is structured as a National Enquirer-style attempt to suck readers into what is, in substance, an extremely vague and equivocal report.

There's been a lot of this on Salon lately -- suggesting that it isn't so great to avoid eating meat, or isn't so great to drive a Prius, then failing utterly to substantiate the suggestion. It reminds me of why I quit taking Mother Jones (after becoming a charter subscriber with the highest of hopes). I know tabloid journalism when I see it. And this is it.

Broadsheet likes to ignore things they don't like to hear.

Carol Lloyd for instance, last week claimed that Glenn Sacks defamed feminism. Glenn Sacks defended himself over the weekend and asked Carol Lloyd to clarify her remarks and point how his defamation.

Carol Lloyd has so far refused to do this.

In general, that's not how blogs operated in good faith operate.

If you discuss another blog, you link to it. If that blog responds back, you acknowledge that.

It's very sad that Carol Lloyd's journalistic ethics and sense of fairplay are about as high as Rush Limbaugh's, Ann Coulter's or Sean Hannity's.

Congratulations Carol for being a part of the problem.

Would Glenn Sacks and/or his PR person please stop spamming the comments with unrelated plugs?

What does he have to do with Vitamin D and sunlight? Is he a feminist? Why does he support Broadsheet? Is Glenn Sacks a self-hating and self-abnegating man? Or just a retarded monkey?

(yes, that's what you get for your spam)