Conservation researchers argue that only by being aware of our aesthetic prejudices can we set them aside when deciding which species cry out to be studied and saved. Reporting recently in the journal Conservation Biology, Morgan J. Trimble, a research fellow at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and her colleagues examined the scientific literature for roughly 2,000 animal species in southern Africa, and uncovered evidence that scientists, like the rest of us, may be biased toward the beefcakes and beauty queens.

Assessing the publication database for the years 1994 through 2008, the researchers found 1,855 papers about chimpanzees, 1,241 on leopards and 562 about lions — but only 14 for that mammalian equivalent of the blobfish, the African manatee.

“The manatee was the least studied large mammal,” Ms. Trimble said. Speculating on a possible reason for the disparity, she said, “Most scientists are in it for the love of what they do, and a lot of them are interested in big, furry cute things.”

– Natalie Angier, New York Times.

I don’t doubt the idea presented by this article at all. It makes perfect sense that conservationists would work harder to protect cute animals than ugly ones.

But I think the evidence cited above is a particularly bad example, and — and maybe I’m missing something here — strikes me as a pretty severe lapse in logic. I mean, what besides ugliness distinguishes the manatee from chimps, leopards and lions that just might make people less likely to study it in-depth?

Could it be that manatees live in water? Am I nuts? Doesn’t it seem perfectly reasonable to expect human scientists would be more likely to study animals they can observe without strapping on SCUBA gear?

Plus, you know, I’m sure lots of people find manatees plenty attractive. Look at the thing:

After he was bonked in the head by a bag, Steven Slater stunned passengers by spewing profanity and ranting about quitting as the flight from Pittsburgh pulled up to the gate about noon.

“To the f—–g a–hole who told me to f–k off, it’s been a good 28 years,” Slater, 38, purred, cops said. “I’ve had it. That’s it,” he added, a passenger said.

The mad-as-hell steward grabbed a couple of brewskis and popped one open before activating the emergency exit, witnesses told airport employees.

After tossing his two carry-on bags on the slide, he followed them to the tarmac.

– Alison Gendar, Oren Yaniv and Dave Goldiner, N.Y. Daily News.

OK, first off, awesome. I bet if you work on airplanes you constantly think about busting out the emergency slide.

When I worked at the high school, my blaze-of-glory retirement plan included pulling the emergency shower in the chemistry room. I always wanted to see what that would look like and if it even was hooked up to anything. The chemistry teachers always gave kids a big speech about how they should never, ever pull that thing because it would flood the whole school. Unfortunately I left on good terms so I never got to find out if that was true.

Anyway, I have no idea what the background story is here or the nature of Slater’s fight with the passenger. But I know from experience that people can treat you awfully when you’re working a service job.

The article says the guy’s father recently died of Lou Gehrig’s disease and his mother has terminal cancer. Brutal.

I happened to endure some heavy stuff myself one summer when I was working at the deli. When you’ve got that going on, and someone treats you like you’re some sort of mindless machine that exists only for the purpose of serving them, it’s one of the worst feelings imaginable. You want to say, “dammit, you don’t know me, you jackass. You think I’m doing this for fun, you clown? You think I really care about your petty needs?”

You want to get on a loudspeaker, call the person a “f***ing a**hole” and storm out of there. I never did, but I get it. Good for Steven Slater for standing up for himself. Here’s hoping he lands on his feet.

Also, for what it’s worth, I fly JetBlue pretty frequently and Slater looks familiar. I’m pretty sure he was my flight attendant once. And furthermore, it’s amazing that the Daily News put three reporters on the flight-attendant meltdown story.

I did an interview with Matt Himelfarb at Mets Today earlier this week. He asked me about my job, how I got it, and a lot about writing in general. Check it out.

I very much enjoyed doing the interview, but it felt a little strange to talk about my own writing and I struggled (perhaps in vain) to avoid sounding pretentious.

Anyway, a brief rant on the topic of writing — and not in response to anything specific. Just in general:

It bothers me that so many people seem to dedicate their time to exposing bad writing on the Internet. I hate that.

First off, though I recognize the importance of — and do my best to employ — decent grammar and compelling structure, I  don’t see the point in getting all broken up if someone manages to get a message across without following some preconceived formula for “good writing.” Language is a fluid thing anyway.

Second, who the hell do you think you are? If you’re so certain you know what constitutes good writing, go produce some. Otherwise, read what you like and avoid what you don’t, just like everyone else does.

UPDATE: To clarify, I have no beef with exposing and arguing against illogical or silly points made by other writers. I do way too much of that to complain about it. What bothers me is people getting all high-and-mighty about the craft itself.