"36.1 million: The estimated number of potential trick-or-treaters in 2006 - children 5 to 13 - across the United States, down 45,000 from 2005. Of course, many other children - older than 13, and younger than 5 - also go trick-or-treating.

109.6 million: Number of occupied housing units across the nation in 2006 - all potential stops for trick-or-treaters.

93%: Percentage of households who consider their neighborhood safe. In addition, 78 percent said they were not afraid to walk alone at night."

"Nobody really knows where network executives come from or where they go after being fired. Perhaps those neatly groomed suits marching in lock step through Burbank are themselves the undead, demons, witches and vampires who suck the blood of Nielsen pollsters, turn viewers into zombies and howl at the Moonves. They are taking over the planet one show at a time.

Because there are, after all, an unnatural number of supernatural series at the moment....

...Trends, like zombies, tend to rise again, and certain periods have been marked by an increased fascination with the occult. It's possible that now, when the world seems besieged by perils of our own creation, from global warming to weapons of mass destruction, people seek a higher scapegoat: supernatural forces that are beyond our ken and not our fault.

But the paranormal does have a pattern of springing up at times of deep pain or confusion.

After the American Civil War grieving relatives seeking to reconnect with their lost love ones turned to all kinds of unorthodox practices, from soothsayers to Kirlian photography, which claimed to capture the subject's supernatural aura.

...Most shows before 'The X-Files' and after posited the supernatural as either silly or serious, but unquestioned.

At the moment television...could be a rather damning statement about our times or a sign that the television industry is controlled by a cabal of the damned and the undead, intent on airwave domination."

While social scientists tend to celebrate the growing diversity of living arrangements in America that depart from the natural family, occasionally their guild concedes that not all family forms are created equal. In documenting the "wide and deep" diversity of living arrangements in America, a special issue of Social Science Research nonetheless finds "very significant" differences in these arrangements, especially between marriage and cohabitation and between first and second marriages.

Introducing an issue devoted to family research, Steven Nock of the University of Virginia cites "growing equality between the sexes" as perhaps the "most obvious" contributor to what he calls a "restructuring of intimate relationships" like marriage and cohabitation. And while not lamenting these changes per se, he nonetheless observes-without noting the irony-that what sexual equality has given it may have also taken away, as these changes in family structure increasingly represent the basis of social inequality. He writes:

"The 'haves' are generally those in stable marriages. The 'have nots' are generally those who live outside of marriage, especially with children. So vast is the difference, one is tempted to replace the traditional notion of social class with the more descriptive term marriage class. Marriage now divides the population in much the same way social class once did. Indeed, it may do so more profoundly. Neither education nor occupation so clearly discriminates between those at the two ends of the economic spectrum as marital status does. Those with higher levels of education, income, and occupational stability are more likely to be married and vice versa. The poor or precarious are more likely to be single and vice versa."

Yet the sociologist seems unable to nock off the baggage of his peers, cautioning against reading too much into what he admits are "pervasive correlations," because "the reality is far more complicated." And rather than questioning parents who chose to live outside the protective bonds of marriage, Nock ends up claiming that "family economics," more than family structure, drive the "intergenerational transmission of disadvantage" associated with deviations from the married norm.

So a journal that initially sees "very significant" differences in family forms pulls a bait and switch, ending up making the case for "the pervasive impact of poverty on children," pointing out how "parents can moderate significantly the otherwise deleterious consequences of poverty by their own behavior and choices." Unfortunately none of the articles suggest that marrying or staying married might be among those responsible choices that might make a significant difference for children.