Got to take some guts to do that. I mean, having a public admission on the steps of a federal building in New York City, breaking down and crying in front of the cameras about what you did wrong, and then having the audacity to say you shouldn't serve the time even though you lied to the government?

The Justice Department confirmed Monday that Jones is among hundreds of convicted felons who have applied for presidential pardons or sentence commutations, but would provide no further details. A pardon removes a conviction from someone's record, while a commutation only reduces or eliminates the person's sentence.

I understand Jones has kids, and that's not a good situation to be in, with their mother serving out a sentence. But those are the risks you take when you lie to federal agents. I mean, damn. You gotta think about those things when you're keeping up the lie -- whether it's worth it for you or your family to go through that.

Ankle cleavage seen on the Fendi Spring 2009 runway. (Getty)

In the Help Desk column, the editors of T: The New York Times Style Magazine answer questions from readers. Submit your queries on fashion, travel, design and food to The Moment.

Question: In the summer, I like to wear shorter pants (à la Thom Browne and other designers) while wearing loafers without socks. But I have ruined shoes this way. What can I do?

Answered by: Bruce Pask, T's men's fashion director.

I definitely don't recommend going "commando" in your shoes. Sweat, especially in the summer, will destroy not just leather, but also possibly your relationship — stinky feet are usually not considered an asset. Peds is a company that makes low-cut "invisible" socks that are hidden inside shoes, but they are made for women. (The company told me in an e-mail that a men's line is coming in 2009.) I did a pretty extensive search on the Web and found a company called G. Lieberman & Sons, an online retailer focused on men's specialized hosiery. It actually manufactures and sells a men's version of the Ped in a nude color, and in the more man-friendly black (below). Once you’re socked up, keep in mind that this faux-sockless look doesn’t work with all pants. Adam Derrick, designer for To Boot New York, recommends cotton khakis or a very casual suit. And one last thing: “Make sure you have tan legs,” he says. “No one wants to see a pasty ankle.”

Summer essentials: low-cut socks and nice gams. (Yes, these legs belong to a man.)

Read previous installments of the Help Desk column.

Perhaps that's why it didn't surprise me to see a bicyclist flip over the hood of a car that was stopped at a traffic light.  True, the car was slowing to a stop in the pedestrian walkway, rather than at the white line where he was supposed to stop.  True, the bicyclist probably shouldn't have been in the pedestrian walkway itself, even though his lane of traffic did have the right of way at that point.  Also true that a bike can't swerve as fast as a car can stop.  Still, if the biker had been a little more careful and aware, he probably wouldn't have been flung bodily across the top of the car.  Silly biker.  Flips are for kids!

But sometimes, it's not the bikers who are at fault.  Take the recent bike race in Monterrey, Mexico.  A drunk driver fell asleep at the wheel and bashed into almost the entire race.  You can check out the picture of bikers flying everywhere here.  I would say the entire incident is hilariously funny if it hadn't already resulted in at least one death.  Even though the race is an event that probably took all precautions, anything can happen, especially to those with less protection on the road.  Bikers, for your own safety, please obey the rules of the road and don't take unnecessary risks.

I cast on last Wednesday for a pair of footies that I've had in my queue for a couple of months. A pair of these babies takes just ONE ball of Cascade Fixation, no kidding! The pattern is Mom's Fast Florida Footies from the ColorJoy! web site. It's a fast, easy and fun pattern, and Fixation is great to work with. It's cotton, but has elastic in it so it's good and stretchy -- which is another reason why you can get a pair of footies out of one small ball.

I even have enough yarn left to make a second pair. Although for the second pair, I think I'll modify a little -- maybe toe-up, short row heel, and instead of purling on the sole, just stockinette the whole way around. I'm not crazy about how the stitches open way up right along the transition to the purled sole. Maybe casting on more stitches would help with that, but then each footie would use more than half a ball of yarn. I can JUST get a pair out of one ball. I really like the little rolled cuff at the top, though. The yarn is nice and soft and squishy, too.

I've also been working on dishcloths with an awareness ribbon motif as a fundraiser for my Relay For Life team. I won't be knitting up very many of them, just a small amount as an experiment to see how it goes. The first go-round wasn't so hot. I started off with the Grandmother's Favorite dishcloth pattern -- this is a very popular pattern that pretty much everyone who has ever knitted a dishcloth has made. I charted out an awareness ribbon graphic to knit into the dishcloth. First I tried a garter stitch background, which is what the original pattern calls for, which meant the motif was in stockinette stitch. It looked like crap to me (although I do think it looks better in the photo -- but looking better in the photo is not what counts). I had also tried the same pattern but with a stockinette background and garter stitch motif, and that was looking even worse. So I just made a plain dishcloth for the second attempt.

Next, I switched to a different dishcloth pattern that's knit square instead of on the bias. I used the same basic technique as the Skully Dishcloth, but using my own chart for the ribbon motif. This turned out better -- although the ribbon on the first attempt looks a bit squatty. (Click the picture for a close-up.) I'll need to try to lengthen the top of it so it flows better. It's worth noting that this technique would work on the bias-knit dishcloth as well -- but I really dislike having to do the decreases (knit 2 together) in extremely inelastic dishcloth cotton, especially having been spoiled by knitting a whole bunch of recent projects in stretchier fibers like wool and the elasticized Fixation mentioned above.

I only have five days till Sock Wars starts... so I'll just have to see how many dishcloths I can finish by then. Plus I still have a lap blanket to weave before the end of the month... better get back to work!

After my first few hours of playing this game, I must admit I was hugely disappointed. The hype had over done itself - I expected to much. The controls were over complicated, the combat system appeared awful, the handling of the cars terrible and the city too dark and dingy. I went to work that day, reading Internet forums of similar experiences. I thought - has this game gone from the most anticipated title in years to the biggest let down in years? I can now, however answer that question. Its an Emphatic NO.

The game is like an ugly new-born. The horror and surprise, that after 9 months wait your child is in fact an ugly beast.  Well fear not, after the first initial disappointment you will learn to love your child. You will grow to love your child very very much.

So what did I miss in the first 3 hours of gameplay? Well first of all, the sheer depth of this monster. The peds are fantastic. I have witnessed them under the bonnet of their broken cars, reading newspapers, smoking, putting up an umbrella in the rain, in-fighting with each other, being chased and then arrested by the love-able LCPD, and that's just the start.

The cut-scenes look fantastic in HD, and the dialogue is typical Rockstar brilliance. The way Niko nods and smiles every time he has a conversation with Little Jacob when he hasn't a clue what he is saying is just one example from many fantastic little touches.

Two major gripes I had when I first picked up the game, was the driving and the combat system. Before I start, let me say that I now fully appreciate and more importantly fully operate both!!!! The driving simply takes time to get used to. The over-steer at times is infuriating, as is the suspension on nearly allthe cars being ridiculously high and springy! But over time you will become used to the handling of the vehicles in GTA4. It becomes incredibly rewarding when you finally get to grips with it and successfully evade a 3-star wanted level.

The combat system is very similar IMO to that of Drakes Fortune. The emphasis being to find cover and pick off your enemies one by one. At first (again like most people) I struggled to used the new system. I now put this down to excessive hours of gameplay on Infinity Ward's highly addictive COD4. In call of Duty the R1 shoulder button is used to fire your weapon. In GTA4 the R1 button is used to take cover. In one of the first LJ missions I found myself ducking in and out from behind a sofa instead of firing as my brain got used to the controls!! Once you get the hang of it, it becomes second nature. Using the right analogue stick to destroy someones leg or blow off their head can be highly entertaining!!

The missions I have done so far have been fun, but not that exciting. They are, however still being very tutorial based. For example, teaching you how to climb ladders, perform executions, using the radar and using your mobile phone etc. I have no doubt that as the story progresses, the more complex and entertaining the missions become.

Please feel free to check back for a more in-depth review after I have completed 30 hours of gamplay.

This same rush to judgment came up recently when Miguel Tejada was implicated in the Mitchell report.  Folks told me knowingly that this explained his drop-off in production over the past couple of years:  Once he got off the juice, his slugging fell.  I pointed out, remembering the rumors swirling around Tejada since he was signed by the Athletics, that it could be the result of aging, and a not-unexpected drop-off linked to that.  Now we know Tejada is 33, not 31.

Fans, and particularly the major media covering the game, need to acknowledge that we don't know exactly how and to what extent steroids or testosterone or human growth hormone effect the performance of ball players.  Keeping our perspective, allowing for what we don't know, can lead to more informed and reasoned discussions and solutions based on facts rather than conjecture or assumption.

Last month, I wrote a pretty bad, yet cheesy, poem about Jose Canseco, and what I thought about his 'name calling' in his books and interviews. I made up my mind about him from the beginning, and never gave his word a chance. But that changed today, when I finally gave in and bought one of his books. I bought his newest release, 'Vindicated', from a Penn Station bookstore that was selling it at 20% off (not that the discount is what led me to buy it). It was time for me to give 'Jose' another chance. After all, my former opinion of his 'allegations' and 'name calling' was mostly fueled by the media bigwigs at ESPN or CNNSI, instead of my own cerebrally-formed opinion. So, here it goes.

[Start of 'Bizarre Story' Break]

I was riding the LIRR with my girlfriend, on our way to visit my grandparents, when a whole bunch of Mets fans got on the train at Woodside (I say Mets fans because they all had Johan Santana jerseys on). One of them caught a glimpse of what I was reading, and said down at me, "What does it say about A-Rod?". I ignored him, and kept on reading, because I wasn't about to get into a conversation with a guy on his way to a baseball game who already looked drunk (at 11:00am, mind you). He turned to a friend of his and continued by saying, "This kid is reading that Canseco book. Man, @&#% Canseco... and @$&% A-rod too". Kid? Amazing how an 18 year old "kid" calls a 26 year old a kid (I know he was 18 because a friend of his had said "you're NOT drinking at the game, you're only 18"). Okay, how in the world would he know I'm 26 anyway... but that's besides the point. Back to the post...

[End of 'Bizarre Story' Break]

I'm not going to give away the meat of the book, because I believe everyone (who has an interest in this topic) should buy the book and give it a chance. The guy is simply recalling his life, from start to present day. Sure, he names a bunch of players and recalls a lot of conversations, but that's purely secondary to what he really talks about in the book. The majority of this new book was focused on two things (at least from what I took from the book):

A) Why steroids and performance enhancing drugs were kept so 'quiet' during the post 'Strike of 1994' years of baseball. (I happened to have the same 'theories' that he had)
B) How steroids created a 'Level Playing Field'. (That's where I was a little skeptical)

My opinion on Jose's claims haven't change dramatically, but simply looking at what he has to say (lie-detector passed and all) has given me a whole bunch of new theories to rack my brain with. I will agree with him on this, though. "Chicks Dig The Longball". How many of you remember that commercial with Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Big Mac? Jose made a reference to that commercial in the book, and how it was a funny reference to the state of baseball back in the (now referred to as the 'Juiced') era. Fans (and sports coverage hounds like ESPN and others) love the home run ball. Whether it's a solo shot, a grand slam, or a game-winner... there's something about the ball being crushed into the next atmosphere that gives baseball fans an incredible rush. After reading this book, I'm starting to believe in the idea that Steroid use was kept quiet because it kept fans (notice I didn't say 'all fans') in their seats, buying more tickets, buying more food/alcohol, and fueling the baseball economy.

None of this means I'm a believer in everything Jose says. What it means, is that I was knowingly hand-fed media garbage and used their opinions as my own. I accepted it without questioning it, and now I want my own opinion back.

So what have I learned from all this? While I never did know a whole lot about Jose Canseco, his book has given me some neat theories to play around with. Thanks Jose!

Believe what you want. Believe who you want. We'll all believe who we want and what we want. It's our god-given right to do so. But me? After all of the 'Canseco Nay-Saying' I did? I'm glad he opened his big mouth. Then again, the media-opinion-hungry kid on the inside wants this guy to fade away into the darkness that is the "Steroid Era" and never been heard from or seen again, along with everyone else involved. But then I'd just be a media-puppet... and we all know that's no fun!

Respect My Authoritah!

Apparently, senor statistician Bill James thinks that the 1984 Twins, specifically Gary Gaetti and Kirby Puckett, were on the juice the years after their unremarkable performances in the 1984 season, according to this well written piece from Bugs and Cranks (wonderful blog by the way), and my reaction is, "are you serious?" Steroids were not that prevalent even in the National Football League until the late 1980s, specifically 1988, where 6 percent of users tested positive for the stuff, and that is a small number of users, when, obviously, you have 94% of players testing clean, and even with fake testing procedures, that number is probably still really high, going with the assumption that more NFL players do steroids than MLB players.

To quote the blog article:

"Suggesting the possibility that the Twins’ two World Championships may have been aided by their team being among the first to discover…well, I’d better not go there. Nor will I point out that Gaetti was bald and had acne and Puckett died young."

In 1984 or 1985, in the article on the ESPN mag a couple years ago, referring to well-known steroid user Jose Canseco after the loss to the fist-pumping Dodgers:

"Canseco was no steroids newbie. He'd begun to use in the mid-1980s, in Huntsville, Ala., while playing Double-A ball. To look at him was to know, or to choose not to see. The Washington Post's Thomas Boswell caused a furor in September 1988 when he broke the silence. On a CBS News show, he said Canseco, headed for a 40/40 year and the MVP award, was "the most conspicuous example of a player who has made himself great with steroids."

Here is ex-Cincinnati Reds trainer Larry Starr also, a couple years ago on the San Jose Mercury, about the steroid boom in 1988 (the link is to a Redszone forum post, because the article is gone and probably a pay article now):

"Starr first became aware of a player using steroids in 1988. The player asked him about potentially harmful side effects after he reported to spring training 30 pounds heavier with nearly three percent less body fat.

"Starr warned the player about the possibility of liver problems and kidney damage. He said so little was known about the effects of steroid abuse that he couldn't predict how the drug might impact the player in later years.

"The player used steroids despite Starr's warnings and had a productive season. The player used steroids to prolong his career, but a series of injuries, which may have been steroid-related, ended it.

"Starr said steroid use became commonplace within a few short years. There wasn't a large percentage of players using, but Starr heard rumors about the Bash Brothers and Texas Rangers players getting their steroid supply in Mexico."

It could be possible to see Kirby and Gaetti with the steroids I guess, even if their performance after the 1984 World Series season supports that, but assuming that 1988 was the first season that steroid-trained players appeared in the Majors, I would not put anything against Kirby and Gaetti. There are too many articles supporting against it. The counter-argument is that James wrote that to make his readers mad. That may also be the case though, because Bill James is a hell of a writer and I could see him making flattery out of sensationalism, assumption and causation vs. correlation. If that's the case, that is pretty funny right there, and this post would not exist.

What do Kirby Puckett's 1985-1994 seasons have to do with the price of tea in China anyways? I'll save that for the next article...

Of course, a chunk of Bonds's OBP came from the intentional walks he received, 43 last season. You can argue that this disproportionately inflates his OBP, a function less of Bonds's abilities and more of Brian Sabean's inability to find hitters better than Ray Durham and Bengie Molina to hit behind him. So lop 35 intentional walks off of Bonds's total, and give him the average performance in his other at-bats in those 35 times up. That makes him a .276/.439/.565 hitter, assuming he drew no walks in that time and saw the same distribution of lefty and righty pitchers, both ungenerous assumptions. He'd pick up a couple of homers, and almost certainly more than a couple RBI, both of which would inflate his value to those who think RBI an indication of value.

Then again, those intentional walks tell you more about Bonds's skills than anything else in his stat line. Managers all think he's good enough to not bother trying to get out nearly ten percent of the time. How can a hitter that good not warrant a spot in someone's lineup? With a VORP of 55.2, he was 19th in all of MLB. There is no argument that Bonds is not a championship-caliber hitter. He remains one of the very best in the game on a per-at-bat basis.

What are the objections to signing Bonds? His baserunning and defense have been attacked viciously. It is clear that his troublesome knees have slowed him down as he ages; he's not the speedster he was in his prime. He doesn't steal many bases any longer, yet he's nearly perfect when he does: 8-for-8 since 2006, 59-for-70 since 1999. Contrary to what one might read in the papers, I've seen no baserunning study showing he's one of the worst baserunners in the game. Harping on his baserunning deficiencies reflects bias, not study.

Bonds's defense, like his baserunning, looks worse than it actually is. One legitimate criticism is of Bonds's arm, which is terrible. Then again, that has little to do with age; Bonds couldn't throw when he was a Pirate able to play center field. Bonds's defense, arm included, is a negative, but does it cost his team more than a win in a season? He is not the worst left fielder in the majors, with regulars such as Adam Dunn, Raul Ibanez, Luis Gonzalez, and Pat Burrell out there. So Bonds puts up a lot of runs at the plate, and gives back some with his baserunning and defense. His performance in those areas is not optimal, but not unusually so, and no more so than the way baserunning and defense have been weak spots for older hitters since Ty Cobb was an Athletic.

Despite the persistent notion that Bonds is a designated hitter, he ranked in the top twenty in innings played in left field each of the past two seasons, and for the two years combined, he was 13th. Among the players ahead of him by innings are the aforementioned defensive liabilities and other so-so defenders such as Jason Bay and Manny Ramirez. Left field, quite clearly, is not the place where teams worry so much about defense. So raising the issue with Bonds, who is on the field a reasonable amount, played the position no more poorly than many of his peers, and outhit them all, is ridiculous. Bonds's defense is not a reason not to sign him.

Bonds's actual playing time, substantial in each of the last two seasons, is actually underestimating how much he could play for an American League team. With the ability to DH at least half the time, Bonds would be able to play at least as often as he has the past two seasons. Bonds's 2006-07 performance underestimates what he could do for an AL team. Less time on the field could save his legs, enabling him to run and field better when he is in left.

Another objection is money. We have no idea what amount Bonds is looking for. But how much ground should Bonds give in negotiation? He was a more valuable player last season than Andrew Jones, who will make $18 million this season. He was better than Eric Gagne, who will make $10 million. Look at what a mediocrity, such as Juan Pierre, is paid. In a market that values inferior players like Pierre at eight figures a year and more, how can it be that a league leader in OBP has outlandish demands? At his 2007 price ($15.5 million), Bonds is a reasonable buy. At $10 million he's a bargain.

A better reason for a prospective employer's wariness is the uncertainty over Bonds's perjury-and-obstruction-of-justice trial. From a contractual standpoint, this is handled easily: the contract becomes null in the event of a conviction. Beyond that, given the pace of the prosecution thus far, the government's need for more "typos" that bias the jury pool, and Bonds's lawyers' need to make motions to counter the typos, Bonds will be available for the 2008 season.

Bonds is perceived as unpopular among baseball fans, and carries the stigma of his assumed steroid use with him. The first is a problem, although one that is a complicated issue going back 20 years, and clearly prevents some teams that protect their image as family-friendly from getting involved. However, the steroid thing, like Bonds's baserunning and defense, should be a non-factor. Players have been suspended for performance-enhancing drug (PED) use and then signed to multi-year, multi-million-dollar contracts. With all the names mentioned in the Mitchell Report, and all the subsequent mea culpas, no players have found themselves released, sued, or blacklisted. Steroid use, proven or otherwise, is simply not grounds for not employing a baseball player. Holding out on Bonds for that reason is hamstringing your team for no reason.

The steroid issue leads to one other justification for not signing Bonds: that his presence creates a circus atmosphere around the team. The lack of this atmosphere is a core element in the "happy Giants" stories that floated around in the press in February. But the media circus that accompanies Bonds is just that: a media circus. If there's anything we know about Barry Bonds, it's that he doesn't enjoy talking to the media. He doesn't invite them to cover him, he certainly doesn't provide good quotes, and he doesn't make the media's job easy. Nevertheless, we've been treated to a decade of stories about how Bonds doesn't like the media and is a big meanie to its members. This is akin to the issues discussed above, raising the idea that Bonds creates a media circus far above its importance. Worse, the rationale blames Bonds for this, when he's the last person who wants a "circus" atmosphere.

Barry Bonds is a championship-caliber baseball player, better at getting on base and hitting for power than all but a few hitters in the game. The things he doesn't do well -- running, throwing, and covering ground in left field -- lessen his value, but do not come close to negating it. He would be one of the 40 most productive players in the NL, and with an AL team his playing time and productivity would increase. Teams have behaved as if winning is what matters in their dealings with bad guys -- count the spousal abuse charges as well as the PED cases. Drawing a line at Bonds is absurd when you consider what he brings to a team.

And speaking of Clemens and Pettitte... Brian McNamee's defense team filed a motion to get Rusty Hardin removed from his post as Clemens' lawyer because Hardin has also represented Pettitte, whose story contradicts what Clemens has claimed. Hardin says that he has invested too much time into Clemens defamation suit against McNamee, and that Clemens has invested too much money, for him to get kicked out now. I must say Rusty, a wonderful point you've brought up. Really, it is...

He also argued that he only represented Pettitte for four days without a signed contract or payment. He also said that Clemens would be willing to hire another lawyer to question Pettitte in court, protecting Pettitte's interests.

And apparently McNamee has invested too much money in this legal battle as well. He is auctioning off signed Roger Clemens memorabilia. He even graced some of the items with his own autograph!

Aside from that, the more I think about it, the more I just want to have a home floor. I don't mind floating, in fact I love the challenge of working with different nurses and I get along well with almost all of them, but I am missing out on developing professional relationships. I'd like that home floor to be Peds. I am incredibly impressed with the nursing staff. They are excellent mentors, and the pace of Peds gives me time to really pick their brains. They place a lot of emphasis on psychosocial aspects of nursing, which is lot of fun, and something I can get involved in quite a bit even as a tech. (Some of) the doctors are really approachable, and I can even talk to them briefly about patients.

I went to my manager yesterday and asked to be switched to part time, because I would really like tuition assistance and night shift differential. She gave me this lecture about how expensive it is to pay for PHO (which is sick pay), so she only has PRN. I told her I would be looking for a floor position because I wanted part time, and she said that was understandable, but I should remember that at the hospital, I have to work the shifts they give me, and there is no flexibility, and her dept. is so much better because we can have the best of both world with pool shifts and home care...blah, frickin', blah.

I also went to the Peds manager and offered to take a position once per week to fill in the gaps she will have in her schedule. She thought it might be a good idea. I wanted to tell her how I feel about Carol, but I suppose I should talk to HR instead. The Peds manager is an excellent supervisor as well as administrator, and professional relationships are very important to her. I think she was horrified she accidentally upset my manager. My manager, on the other hand, has demonstrated over and over that she is lacking in skills, as well as ethics.

Now, I'm studying pediatrics at the selfsame Slightly-Larger-Community-Hospital. Much more organised. To wit: I actually know where I am, with whom, and doing what for the whole two month block, in advance. They have scheduled me my own patients, with blocks of time placed for the preceptors to teach me. I have already presented my own interesting cases at grand rounds.

How does a new resident make herself stand out from the pack?

Four-year old girl presents with pelvic pain and dysuria, with some post-micturitional dribbling.

Resident takes full family/past medical/social/present illness history. Even screens for sex abuse.

Nothing. Stumped.

Resident examines child. Has never done pre-pubescent gyne exam before. Has no clue what she's looking at.

Fails to notice THERE'S NO VAGINAL OPENING.

Looks like complete moron . Yes, thank-you very much.

(For any medical students, little girls have everything big girls have, only smaller. This little girl had labial agglutination, which is when the labia kind of stick together and grow that way. Premarin cream BID works magically. Who knew?)