...then it's not your fault if the trick-or-treaters cut themselves on them.

Via Snarkout, comes this bit from LGM, (and originally from the Times), about the scope of precedent which has been set by the Lily Ledbetter case:

The Idaho plaintiff, Noll Garcia, uses a wheelchair. He said his apartment violated federal standards because it was not readily accessible. Under the law, he had two years to challenge a "discriminatory housing practice" in court.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, writing for the majority, said this two-year period began when construction of the building was complete. Mr. Garcia lost out because he filed suit in 2003 -- within two years of renting the apartment, but 10 years after it was built.

I can only assume that this is the type of result which is so egregious that it will travel up the court system and get the precedent overturned?

What if cars had "drunk-mode"? In other words, you flip a switch and it puts on some modified hazards to alert everyone else, and caps your speed at ~15 mph.

You're still charged for reckless driving if you damage anyone's property, and you're still charged with vehicular injury/manslaughter/homicide if you hurt anyone. You're still responsible for your actions. But a car going 15 mph won't generally kill anyone, and here's the key: you are then going slow enough that your reaction time matches your speed.

(Why do I feel like I'm violating something super sacred?) Obviously the best scenario is that we fully subsidize public transportation and everyone can safely get home.

This came up because Jammies' grandfather would drink to excess and get his liscense taken away all the time, and when it got taken away, he'd switch to his old John Deere. And, well, on a certain level, doesn't that sound good? You can't do much damage in a John Deere.

Much is written nowadays about childbearing and correct procreation, and that is quite right; it must all be worked upon and the best results obtained. Only I believe we expect too much of the process and are too anxious to think that an immiserated parent is contrary to the demands of nature. I take the other view. The immeasurable advantage which miserable parents offers to the upbringing of children consists, it seems to me, in substituting the hard truth of the world rather than substanceless and false pleasantries.

Stanley recently wondered, regarding Santa Claus, whether the typical adult habit of inculcating, or omitting to inoculate against, the belief in such a sprightly elf does not, like the Parthian, work more disenchantment in its departure than it ever did enchantment in its presence, not merely spreading disbelief immediately but fostering resentment, suspicion, and recalcitrance to give credence even to innocuous proposals, for, having once been wounded, the child is twice protected. The same proposal was made to me by another acquaintance of mine, shortly before Stanley made known his thoughts; thus I conclude that the general idea is not without currency, and yet, no application of it is made to the more familiar deceptions we practice on our children at all seasons of the year, if, at least, we are what is called, no doubt with a tip of the hat to the proverbial unshining grove, a loving parent. When first the deception is discovered, the fall reaches greater depths than if there had never been a rise.

When I think of all the happy youths, with happy parents, who will on emerging from Mother's apron see this dank, horrid, merciless world for what it is, my heart comes near to breaking! Let us not deceive ourselves as cruelly as those blissful fools are deceived by those who above all owe them the truth: not everyone can, on encountering death, disease, and despair, make as philosophical response to it as did Siddhartha—nor is the retreat to philosophy an example to be lauded! And when I think of the fewer but apparently—only apparently—happier youths whose adulthoods will be similarly joyous, who will reach their deathbeds without ever having experienced crushing injustice, having been been wracked with guilt or shame or suffering for no reason, who will, in short, lead from egg to apples thoroughly delightful and enviable lives, then my heart cannot bear up any longer, then, indeed, does my heart break! Yes! On their behalf, I rend my clothing!

What has gone wrong in these peoples' lives? The proverb has it that dotage is nonage again, but that implies a discontinuity, a break, an interval of maturity; for these people, senex is indeed puer—etiamdum! We cannot be certain where blame lies in all cases, but is it not likely that the root from which these evil flowers have grown is—parents who weren't miserable when they thought of childcare? Had things only been otherwise!

My tone may make you think I am being facetious but I am dead serious.

Sherry (formerly of Stay of Execution, now of Rhubarb Pie with Megan) has a post on probably not wanting to have children. She sounds as if she's got her thinking on the subject pretty clear -- no strong desire for kids, and a clear sense of the things she sees as the negatives:

When I articulate some of the things that put me off about having a child, I sound rigid and fussy: I don't want a house stuffed with bright plastic objects; I don't want to carry six bags around with me when I move from place to place; I don't want to fixate on someone else's excretory schedule for the next four years; I want to be able to choose where and when I direct my attention; I want to be able to listen to my friends without distraction; I want to be able to live spontaneously. I know that I am smarter and happier and healthier when I get enough sleep, and I don't want to be chronically crabby and dull and draggy.

Today's WaPo story about the six contenders to head the RNC is unintentionally hilarious.

Personally, my pick would be either Chip Saltsman, the dud that sent around the "Barack the Magic Negro" song, or Katon Dawson, who until recently was a member of an all-white country club.

Why? Because I'm in favor of people who make bad decisions heading the RNC.

Of course, my delight is fleeting, as I fully expect the Democrats to screw it up anyway. But for the moment, I'm amused.

The AARP has a Modern Love column, too.

My sports bra brand that I've worn since high school has been discontinued. This is terrible! Let's all write to Champion explaining to them that they need to restart production on the Sportshape Bra, item # CH009F. (There are a few on e-bay, but that is not a sustainable solution.) This really is distressing. I don't think you're taking this seriously enough.

Also we just saw a Hyundai commercial that said, "And if you lose your job in the next year, you can return the car." We did not go read the details, though.

Does this count as a good post?

So, without finding a link, my understanding is that Leno thought he'd want to retire, so a few years ago NBC signed Conan to replace him. Then recently Leno changes his mind, so they announce that he'll have an hour-long show before Conan, five nights a week.

Which I would be indifferent to, except that Jammies pointed out that an hour, five nights a week is really a lot of real estate to displace. And therefore that five shows that are in danger of being axed could be discontinued to make room for this Leno crap. Certainly Leno is a lot cheaper to produce than five hour long shows. But if they cancelled, say, Friday Night Lights, that would very much piss me off.

I went to see Frost/Nixon last night. I didn't really want to, having had some serious problems with the play, but I was hungover and couldn't do much more than sit and watch a screen.

The movie is even worse than the play. I felt that it was total bullshit. I don't want to get too spoileriffic, but my main problem was that the movie cultivates an air of a faux documentary, trying to convince the readers that it's well-researched and based on actual events, and then completely invents a pivotal scene that is supposed to explain both Frost and Nixon's motivations. I was pissed enough that this went unmentioned in the movie (my recollection was that it's admitted in the play) but really turned against it upon learning of even more insidious manipulation of events from my fellow moviegoers after the show.

The acting was great and it's surely going to win a lot of awards, but I think this movie should be shunned and scorned. I can't quite put my finger on why this annoys me to the degree it does but it I think the issue does raise some interesting questions about movies like Frost/Nixon and W and others. How much greater is the responsibility to present recent events accurately than things that happened further back in history? How faithful do you have to be vs. how much manipulation is allowed for dramatic license? What about when the film is obviously trying to show parallels between history and today? Can a movie present itself as historical, grossly distort the facts, and still be considered good art?

Wait: a bunch of Canadians think women's ski jumping should be allowed in the upcoming Winter Olympics? Next you're going to tell me they've got gay marriage up there, too. HA!

More seriously, it seems they're right. Or at least, that the IOC's media-relations team is out to lunch; hence the utter lack of any convincing explanation. I offer a (perhaps one-sided) internet video.

Much, much less seriously, if you're going to use a Van Halen song to back your video about women ski jumpers' rights, isn't the more obvious choice, you know, "Jump"?

Here, have some Charlie Robison.

Any resolutions?