I knew education was bad, but I had no idea about this.  I started out laughing at the conflations and Spoonerisms, until I started being concerned, and then a little appalled that students could actually believe what they wrote.

It's at BlondeSense.  Go read it.

A couple of weeks ago the Georgia legislature, in its infinite and abiding wisdom, passed a measure which would allow concealed weapons in bars, parks and on mass transit.  Oddly enough, a number of Atlantans seem to think this is a bad idea - particularly restaurateurs, transit folks and the guy who runs the airport.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin and others have urged Governor Sonny Perdue to veto this measure on the grounds that it's sheer idiocy liable to encourage vigilantism, not to mention terribly difficult to enforce the honor system when drinking is involved.  I honestly don't know about the vigilantism argument, but I grok the drunken stupidity one completely.  We get enough club shootings in downtown ATL; I've no idea why the legislature would want to encourage more of them.

What is disturbing, aside from the idea of guns on the buses, or in the airport, or in the punch-drunk clubs at 3 AM, is the fact that it's terribly easy to get a CCW (concealed carry permit) in Georgia.  We're a shall-issue state, which means if you can buy a handgun, you can get a CCW.  You don't even have to take safety training or prove you know how to use the darned thing.

I'm not entirely anti-gun.  They have their places and their uses, but this proposal is a bad idea and Perdue needs to consider much more than his NRA street cred when deciding whether or not to sign this thing into law.

It's Conversations With My Logs!
Where I answer questions posed by keywords in my logs...

1)  Famous GED completers -  K12 Academics offers a list of some famous GED recipients.  The most interesting entries, in my opinion, are Ruth Ann Minner, Governor of Delaware, Jim Florio, New Jersey Governor 1990-1994, and Peter Jennings.  Earning a GED rather than a traditional high school diploma can make some things - such as entering a prestigious university - more difficult, but it is certainly better than dropping out entirely, and whatever negatives accompany it can be overcome once the recipient goes on to higher education (whether general college or vocational).

2)  Cool gadgets  - I imagine this one's pretty much in the eye of the beholder, but I like the 1.3 megapixel USB digital microscope available at ThinkGeek (picture at right).  Of course, I like most of the stuff at ThinkGeek.  Like every kitchen geek, I desperately need a network controlled refrigerator/oven.  Well, I suppose I don't really *need* it, but I do salivate a little at the thought.  I'd also like to have the Stone Master Gargoyle from FrightCatalog at our next Halloween display, or any number of their other animatronic wonders, but - alas - Chez Kiosan is not an independently wealthy household.

3)  Conscience mind develop 8 week embryo - I think rather than "conscience" you probably want to know whether the fetus has a "conscious" mind - ie, can it think, or just feel, or both or neither?  The neural tube forms shortly after conception and closes during week 3 or six, depending on how you are counting (from LMP or from actual conception).  This forms the basis for the later nervous system (brain, spinal cord).  If you're counting from LMP, 8 weeks into the pregnancy many of the organs are still developing, they are not completely formed until week 10 (which is 8 weeks post-conception).  However, the brain and spinal cord are exceptions to this, and will continue to mature throughout the pregnancy.

For example, while the rudimentary spinal cord exists at 8 weeks and the embryo has some nerve endings which allow it reflex responses to stimuli, the myelin sheath (something required for transmitting pain signals) does not form until significantly later - about 24 weeks.  Evidence exists both for and against embryonic pain at this particular stage, and is highly dependent upon the political leanings of the publishing group.

I tend to accept that, having an incomplete nervous system and only the bare beginning of a brain, the 8 week embryo is not conscious in the sense of being self-aware, nor in the sense of having fully active mental faculties.  Others disagree.  You will have to read the research and decide for yourself, but a slightly better search string would trade "conscious" for "conscience."

4)  FMLA dyslexia - FMLA makes no specific provision for dyslexia.  The only provision which could conceivably apply would be "to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition."  Dyslexia, however, while a serious learning disorder which often requires a great investment of time and resources to remediate, is not generally considered the kind of "serious health condition" which requires extended leave. 

The language currently states "In the case of medical conditions, the employer may find it necessary to inquire further to determine if the leave is because of a serious health condition and may request medical certification to support the need for such leave (see Sec. 825.305)" (US Department of Labor), meaning that your employer is not necessarily obliged to offer you leave just because you ask for it, and may require that you prove the merits of your request before granting it.

Your best bet is to talk to your HR rep, unofficially, about the time commitments you are having to make to remediate (or whatever it is you are doing that necessitates such focus) and find out if he/she believes any petition for FMLA leave under the "serious health condition" qualifier would have merit.  If the HR rep is on your side, you can go ahead with the request.  If not, though, FMLA doesn't leave you much of anything to fall back on, unless you can convince a medical doctor to write something supporting your need to take a leave of absence.

FMLA also requires that you, the employee, give your employer 30 days notice of your intention to take leave.   Or, if an emergency, the language states "as soon as practicable."  Practicable can vary with the exact circumstances, but the law is written so as to expect a minimum of at least a few days' notice, except in the most extreme circumstances.

5)  Dangers of time traveling -  Botched suicides, failure of one's molecules to reintegrate correctly after disintegrating at the superluminal point, the grandfather paradox, causal loops and personal identity, tachyons might only travel backwards, your Delorean might run out of gas and strand you in a bad sequel, and special relativity means it's probably not possible.

As part of the I Believe series, I propose the following:

With proceeds to go to providing frogs for biology classes.

Unless ET objects to the frogs, in which case I suggest home chemistry sets for every kid.

Regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S. 1843), which the House passed last year and upon which the Senate is set to vote today, I had to ask yesterday what reasonable person could possibly oppose it.  The New York Times was kind enough to give me an answer today:

 Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Senate Republicans, of course!  The esteemed Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell is on record with the Times as saying "We think that this bill is primarily designed to create a massive amount of new litigation in our country."  He is not on record as complaining about uppity women trying to screw the white menz out of their rightful place in the hierarchy and take away their jobs and emasculate them with pixie sticks, but that's probably not far off.

Meanwhile, the right-on Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, a co-sponsor of the bill, resorted to very strong language against the Republicans who wish to deny the bill the floor: "unfortunate," she said.  McConnell had better be careful, from Ms. Snowe that's tantamount to pulling out the pixie stick.

Majority Leader Reid has delayed the Senate's convening today until 5:00 PM so that all of the presidential campaigners can be on hand for this critical vote.  Maverick McCain is not expected to attend.  He's too busy with his It's Hip to Be Poor Tour of the Downtrodden to be bothered with actually doing anything to, you know, help them or crazy stuff like that.

If you believe, as I do, that the ability to do the same job as well as or better than one's counterparts merits a salary at the very least commensurate with theirs, then get on the horn and call your Congress Critter (by phone at 866-338-1015 or email) - 'specially if he's a weasel who runs at the sight of pixie sticks.  Wankers.

UPDATED, From WaPo, the Senators aren't the only ones askeered of letting the great unwashed have their day(s) in court, our wonderful Weasel-in-Chief has threatened to veto the bill should it somehow make it out of the Senate.  To put this in perspective, it's not just a women's issue.  The original court decision has already had an impact on other kinds of discrimination suits:

the bill is a needed remedy for a ruling that is already having far-reaching and unexpected effects, limiting access to the courts by female athletes seeking to compete in a male-dominated sport, disabled people seeking to enforce fair housing laws and workers pressing claims of age discrimination, as well as women who are paid less than their male co-workers, according to a survey of federal court cases.

So now it's not just the uppity women who need to be quashed, but also the disabled and the old.  Of course, the disabled have always been a thorn in our national sides, demanding ridiculous things like wheelchair access or braille in elevators.  And don't get me started on people over 25 - completely useless, senile quacks, all of 'em.

"The impact of this decision was enormous," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a national association of civil rights, women's and consumer organizations, which conducted the survey. "It's not just American workers who are affected, but those seeking redress to remedy all kinds of discriminatory actions."

Say it with me, class:  Wankers.

UPDATE 2: Shame on you, Johnny Isakson (R-GA) for suggesting this bill will unfairly "allow people to file discrimination suits against employers for deeds decades old." (AP)  The bill will do no such thing - unless that discrimination is still ongoing, decades later, and at least one instance occured within the last six months.  Your obfuscation borders on a lie, sir, and shoves a knife in the back of every working person who ever voted for you. 

Saxby Chambliss, the other R-GA - not to be confused, however temptingly, with Zaxby's the Chicken Place (Zaxby's at least peddles something tasty, unlike the Senator who got himself elected by calling Max Cleland a coward) - also voted against.

Weasels.

UPDATE 3:  It's over for today.  42 Senators voted to block the debate.  57 voted in favor of debate, falling short of the magic number 60.

For more on this, see Happy Equal Pay Day.

I have no wish to pollute Lance's place with partisan-within-partisan politics, so I'll do it here.  A commenter over there says:

From the tears to the whining to the employment of the bludgeon of fear as if Rove himself were creating [Clinton's] campaign ads, she's made me queasy. The queasiness began, actually, about 2 years ago, when her presidential ambitions were first being whispered about, and she suddenly appeared at a Congressional hearing without her traditional neck scarf but with a honking great gold cross around her neck. Can anyone say "pander"?

And from that moment onward I think that she has been about as naked a political animal as it's possible to be. Even more naked than Bill (whom I loved), because she lacks his compensatory charisma. And when, recently, she pulled out that "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen" line on Obama, as if none of us remembered that a scant month or so ago she was kvetching about unfair coverage in the middle of a freakin' debate--to the point that SNL parodied it--that was pretty much it for me. That's when I decided that I couldn't in good conscience support her. Because she disgusts me.

Oh, if she ends up being the candidate against McCain, of course I'll vote for her. But it will be with me holding my nose. If Obama becomes the candidate, I'll vote with bated breath, too, but it will be from anticipation, expectation, and a touch of anxiety.

1) As if Obama's anti-war speech weren't somehow politically motivated?  Please.

2) As I recall, Clinton wasn't kvetching about the debates, nor the fact that she received most of the pertinent questions first, until after SNL offered the junior Senator from Illinois a pillow, at which point she did, admittedly call attention to that fact.

3)  Both the president and his current SecDef Robert Gates have shed actual tears in recent days.  Unless one is prepared to castigate them for womanish emotionalism, one should probably refrain from beating up Hillary Clinton because her voice broke while on the campaign trail.

One would think women would be done with calling other women to account for tears of frustration, but apparently such is not always the case.

4) As far as the bludgeon of fear, I assume we are directed to the ad depicting national and international crises faced by our current Raggedy Andy during his administration.  I may have mistakenly believed his bumbles fair game for our party to question; I may mistaken have believed that a woman could claim equal ground with men in terms of being prepared for such disasters; I was not aware, however, that calling the man's experience into question was automatic grounds for dismissal. 

If Obama wins, so be it, but one has to wonder at his doing so through typical dog-whistle politics.  Can't he beat her without the crap?  And if not, doesn't that put the lie to the idea that she *only* wins when stoopid, old, dried-up white girls vote for her?  I mean, I'll admit I'm not alone, but there just aren't that many idiot racist old white crones out there.

Oh, and by the same token, if Obama wins, I'll hold my nose and vote, but I won't like it.  Not like I once hoped, anyway.

Senator Obama is, without doubt or reasonable debate, an inspiring speaker.  Most politicians could only dream of his facility with words, or the firebreak it seems to buy him.

Congrats on Pa.

 

Today is the 12th annual celebration of Equal Pay Day, a day not when women actually achieve equal earning power with similarly qualified men, but on day on which we are reminded we haven't achieved that yet, because today is the day we catch up with their earnings from last year.   The exact date varies because some years it takes us a little longer to catch up than others, but it's always on a Tuesday - that's the day in week 2 when women catch up to men's earnings in week 1.

But hey, at least we're allowed to collect a paycheck at all now, which is something, I guess.  The Supreme Court has done what it can fairly recently to see to it we don't get to pester our employers overmuch about it, though, having rendered a 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (May 2007) which "prohibits an employee from legally challenging a case of wage discrimination more than 180 days after the original discriminatory act occurred." (Feminist Majority Foundation)

180 days after the original discriminatory act.  That means that even if the discrimination is ongoing, a woman cannot file suit, which, of course, assumes we both become aware of the issue and can form a substantive claim of discrimination - notoriously difficult to prove in the first place, let alone within 6 months.  The ruling effectively shut down any wage discrimination suits by any woman, ever.

So, you want to know how to celebrate today?  Give your old Senator a ringy-dingy (by phone at 866-338-1015 or email) and let him or her know you want them to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S. 1843), to be voted upon tomorrow.  The Act would reinstate the previous interpretation that each discriminatory paycheck constitutes a new act of discrimination and thereby restarts the 180-day clock for filing a complaint with the EEOC.

I appreciate that, for various reasons, some people are opposed equitable remuneration.  I don't get it, but I acknowledge it.  This isn't that, though; it simply affords the right to be heard.  What reasonable person could oppose that?

For more on this, see I Had to Ask.

In case you couldn't tell, I like Hillary Clinton.  I always have, from the moment she brazenly suggested that first ladies could be more than window dressing, to the moment she acknowledged the "vast right-wing conspiracy" anyone with half a (left) eye had already seen, to the moment she decided "standing by your man," could be the better part of valor, to the moment she announced her candidacy for this nation's highest office.  I have sent contributions; I have written letters.  I genuinely like the woman.  I even like Bill.  I wouldn't want to be married to him, but he was a good president, if not a good husband, and based on his politics, I like him.

Which is why this is difficult to say.

The two biggest problems with the Senator's campaign have been her husband and her staff.  Bill's re-dust-up over the South Carolina comments do his wife no favors.  He's not actually running for president, mind you, but it is difficult for the population at large to separate the two.  And he is larger than life; he throws a long shadow.  I would hope the former president would start being as careful of his wife's campaign as he was of his own - if not for her sake, or ours, at least for the sake of his own legacy, which has admittedly been tarnished of late.

And then there is Hillary's staff.  Whoever suggested she use the word "obliterate" on air should be fired.  The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction worked during the Cold War, and the idea of preemptive threat (as opposed to preemptive war) is well-established as both acceptable and tenable.  Couching it in such, forgive the pun, explosive terms, however, is not. 

Senator Clinton went on, of course, to explain her position in detail (via TalkLeft, with worthy commentary), but the detailed, cogent, viable explanation doesn't make for the headlines "obliterated" does.  This is campaign 101 - don't let the soundbite overpower the actual message.  It should enhance and entrance, not smash and grab.

I still hope to be able to vote for Hillary in the general, but such mistakes make this more difficult than it ever needed to be, particularly given the proclivity of certain segments of our population to always assume the worst of any Clinton, irrespective of anything as niggling as facts.

Tony Snow, former Fox and White House talking head, has now spent more than enough time with his family and will join CNN's political team.  Some readers at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution proclaim he will bring a much-needed je ne sais quoi to the ultra-leftist network that offers a home to notorious moonbats Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck.

They don't use the French, of course; French is only for elitist liberals who like puff pastry and read too much.  Unless they're not voting for Obama, in which case they drink beer and don't read good at all.  But it doesn't matter because everybody knows that only the idiot French and John Kerry speak French.

Anyway, some people say this is good, and some people say it's more of the same, and at least one suggests that Spongebob would also make an excellent addition to "the best political team on television."   Personally, I find that last a bit extreme.  Patrick is clearly the better choice. 

The Bush White House doesn't believe ordinary Americans are entitled to much, if any, privacy: they flag library books for government inquiry into those who read them, they tap wires without warrants, they reserve the right to read our mail and pruriently wonder at what goes on in our bedrooms.  And none of this even comes close to touching the ongoing outrage of suspending habeas corpus and actively promoting torture.

The pattern has become such that one wonders what, if anything, this White House would hold as off-limits.

In terms of off-limits to their own insatiable hunger for absolute power, the answer is obviously "nothing."  Yet the AP reports that, while average citizens are entitled to exceedingly little personal space free from unreasonable search, seizure and subjugation, the White House does believe something sacrosanct - the Secret Service White House visitor logs.   The American people, it seems, are not entitled to know who sees our president, on company-time, in the building which we have generously provided.  Apparently such knowledge would grossly impair the president's ability to "gather advice."  Evidently, public knowledge of the President's visitors would be so damaging to the President that he could no longer have the kinds of visitors he likes to have without people getting all nosy and up-in-his-business and snotty about having stupid things like "rights."

Meh.  Stupid people, wanting to know things like who has direct, personal access to the leader of our country.  Don't they know that's not important?  Not really.  Not as important as anything really important - like muppets.  Or pop-tarts.

"You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain," [Senator Barack] Obama said to cheers from a rowdy crowd in central Pennsylvania. Then he said: "And all three of us would be better than George Bush."  AP, via Google

No.  McCain would not be better than George Bush.  McCain would, perhaps, be even worse - precisely because he's managed to cock up a veneer of credibility that Bush couldn't even dream of at this point, let alone manufacture.  This thin coat of synthetic authenticity would allow McCain to further solidify the authoritarian leanings of the neo-con cabal and to play Al Capone to Bush's John Torrio, a surface Robin Hood with all of the emotional depth of Tony Soprano, doing whatever needs to be done to protect the rackets.

Perhaps What Obama Really Meant^TM was that Senator McCain would be better than Bush at hoodwinking most Americans while actually giving them the finger in a code only the faithful could understand.  That much is likely true, if that is indeed What Obama Really Meant^TM.