The Trouble with Middle Schools

Ann Althouse links to this New York Times article discussing the trouble with reforming middle school.

Driven by newly documented slumps in learning, by crime rates and by high dropout rates in high school, educators across New York and the nation are struggling to rethink middle school and how best to teach adolescents at a transitional juncture of self-discovery and hormonal change.

The difficulty of educating this age group is felt even in many wealthy suburban school districts. But it is particularly intense in cities, where the problems that are compounded in middle school are more acute to begin with and where the search for solutions is most urgent.

It's interesting and dovetails nicely with this column by Maggie Gallagher advocating that we just get rid of middle schools all together. Hell, even Amanda at Pandagon agrees with Maggie (and without any of the normal anti-male attack snark).

Says the New York Times:

Middle school teachers point to the gulf between the smooth-skinned sixth grade “babies” and these eighth-graders on the verge of adulthood, and note how they must guide these students through the profound transformations of adolescence.

“These kids go through more change in their lives than at any other time except the first three years,” said Sue Swaim, executive director of the National Middle School Association.

This is so true. When my oldest daughter was in sixth grade (and stuck in the middle of a turbulent custody suit between her father and me), I used to have lunch with her every week. I was amazed at the difference in 12-year-olds. There were those who still looked (and probably acted) like they were 10, and those that looked (and probably acted) like they were 15. I liked interacting with her friends and finding out what these kids were like (we were in a new district, so these weren't the kiddoes I had known since my daughter was in kindergarten).

By the time she was in eighth grade, I still had lunch with her once in a while, but not with the regularity I had in sixth grade. The same kids were much different now than they had been then; they were more mature and articulate and seemed much more focused than they had been as sixth graders.

One thing I got from the article in the NYT and the column by Gallagher is that breaking off this subset of childhood leaves them much more vulnerable to peer pressure and the strong desire to belong. Now that my oldest daughter is in high school, she's more social and has found places she belongs (band, soccer). She's starting to enjoy freedom from her parents and to be regulating larger portions of her daily life.

It seems to me that only having to adjust to one new school (high school) rather than two (middle school and high school) would help students with the adjustments to adolescence. One student in the NYT article spoke of going from being a big fish in a small pond (elementary school) to being the small fish in a big pond (middle school). To be sure, there's the same feeling when one enters high school, but the person is more mature and able to handle the change. It just seems like common sense to me that students do better in a K through eighth situation because they can spend more time and energy focusing on their lessons and less on fitting in.

Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection

Frank Staheli has an interesting article about Clinton administration policies and beliefs about the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection. (Via Common Sense Political Thought).

Through Staheli's post and the comments, one can make the argument that the Clinton administration (and the Bush one that followed) were mistaken in their assumptions about Al Qaeda and Iraq, but it's simply factual to accept that the Clinton administration was the first one to see a connection between the two. As Staheli says in the comments:

What I find most interesting through my interpretation of Richard Warnick's comments is that both the Clinton and Bush administrations had a tendency to assume the worst about terrorism and 'the link' (but I wonder if one can really blame either one for assuming the worst while trying to pro(t)ect the country?

Well, there are obviously people who do because these are the same people unwilling to admit that the idea that Al Qaeda and Iraq were connected didn't start with George W. Bush. It's more important to trash conservatives than stick to the facts.

I've always said that 9/11 should not be blamed on Bill Clinton anymore than I think it should be blamed on George Bush. It was an event that might have been foreseeable in some perfect world, but I'm willing to give all administrations (even ones I disagree with) the benefit of the doubt that they have the nation's best interests at heart. If only our buddies on the left felt the same.

Offended Observers

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice, says that the Supreme Court should "just say no" to so-called "offended observers."

These are people who, on the mere sight of a monument of the Ten Commandments or a nativity scene in the town square, decide to file suits because they are taxpayers. In no other area of the law does the Court allow this kind of legal standing to bring challenges. For years, atheists and others who are antagonistic to religion and who want to remove every religious reference from American public life, have had a special privilege in federal court. Unlike everyone else, church-state separation advocates have not had to show that a law or government activity actually injured them in any way before they could bring a challenge in federal court. All they had to do was show that they were taxpayers. In essence, separationists have had a free reign to bring Establishment Clause lawsuits throughout the country just because they were "taxpayers." Simply put, that’s unfair. No other citizen can just sue because they pay taxes. It should be the same in the religion cases, and the Supreme Court has an opportunity to say "no" to these plaintiffs once and for all.

The case is Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, and it concerns FRF's challenge to the faith-based initiatives program.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is an aggressive anti-religious organization. From their own website, they claim religion basically stifles moral and social progress.

The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.

Interestingly enough, they go on to claim that it was atheists and agnostics who were responsible for the end to slavery and the women's right to vote.

That would come as a big surprise to the Quakers, the first abolitionist group in England. It would also surprise Baptists and Methodists, as well.

In America, the Quakers formed The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, the first abolitionist group. The Second Great Awakening caused many, including small denominations such as the Free Methodist Church to support the abolitionist movement.

So, the idea that it was atheists and agnostics leading the charge for social improvements is both a lie and a mischaracterization. But that's not really anything new, is it?

But I digress.

Sekulow's main point is that merely being a taxpayer doesn't give one standing to bring a lawsuit in any other area of law. Only with the Establishment Clause, and only because of one case (Flast v. Cohen), does a citizen have standing to sue the government simply by paying taxes. You can't do this over defense spending or environmental abuses or foreign policy disputes or educational expenditures. In order to file suit for any of these causes (and more), a person must show how the government harmed him/her through some action.

Not so with Establishment Clause cases. Being a taxpayer is reason enough to attack any separation of church issue.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation case on February 28. Sekulow writes:

Subsequent decisions from the Court regarding Flast v. Cohen have rejected every argument the Court had previously made in support of its earlier decision. "In sum," the ACLJ brief concludes, "this Court has, in the years since Flast, knocked out every single rationale underpinning that decision...Like Wile E. Coyote in the old Roadrunner cartoons, Flast stands in midair, waiting only for that fact to be noticed before collapsing of its own weight."

The Flast precedent has caused a lot of mischief. It has empowered every disgruntled atheist to make a federal case out of any hint of religion in a government action. We are glad the Supreme Court is now taking another look at whether taxpayer suits under the Establishment Clause make sense under our constitutional framework. We are convinced that these taxpayer suits should no longer be permitted. Enough is enough, and it’s time for the Supreme Court to say so.

It's time for the court to put an end to this nonsensical attack on religious participation in public life.

"What if the health department had been around when Jesus was feeding the poor?"

"He might have been, you know, cited," said Gerry Connolly, a county government employee in Virginia.

John Stossel has a column about a church with a soup kitchen which was nearly shut down because it didn't meet the county health department regulations. The regulations, of course, are intended for businesses which are selling food to people, but are still regularly applied to charitable organizations like the First Christian Church of Falls Church, Virginia.

Stossel points out that if it weren't for the soup kitchen, the homeless would be eating from dumpsters and garbage cans.

"They've never stopped me from eating out of a dumpster or a trash can," says James, an astute homeless man who understands Henry Hazlitt's "economics in one lesson," namely, look for the secondary results of government policy.

After this story hit the news, the county health department decided to exempt churches from the regulations. That's fine in the immediate, but it doesn't really solve the problem.

In a year or so, a new health inspector could decide it was his duty to shut down the soup kitchens which don't have a three-compartment sink. Then the homeless will be eating out of the dumpsters. Again.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Moonbat Dictionary: Punishment and Consequence

Moonbat Dictionary is a semi-regular feature here at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels.

There are lots of words in the English language that moonbats have embraced, twisted the arms off of, and crushed beyond recognition. This is because the usual, textbook definitions don't help their causes.

Back at this post, I discussed the difference between lie and mistake. I thought it would be the only time I had to discuss the meaning of words, since, to my knowledge, the people posting on English-speaking websites speak English. But evidently I was wrong.

If there's any word that drives the pro-abortion nuts crazy, it's the word consequence. To the moonbats, consequence is synonymous with punishment. This is because, for them, the idea that certain behaviors lead to certain foreseeable results is punishment.

But let's set the record straight.

A consequence is the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier. A punishment is a penalty inflicted for an offense or fault.

If you drive recklessly and smash your car, the smashed car is a consequence of your behavior. It isn't a punishment. Similarly, if you have sex and one of you becomes pregnant, that's a consequence of sex, not a punishment.

Of course, to the nuts on the left, pointing out that the typical way to become pregnant is by having sex and if one is really serious about avoiding pregnancy one can either abstain or get sterilized is tantamount not liking sex. I'm still trying to connect those dots, but they seem to have that all figured out. Of course, they still haven't got the sex-leads-to-babies thing figured out.

Be that as it may, the term consequence has deeply negative connotations for the pro-abortion people. Instead of admitting that sex has risks and that adults accept the risks when they decide to have sex, they argue that stopping them from aborting the babies is punishment. They also argue that making someone have a baby when they don't want one is punishment.

What they don't consider punishment is having sex without accepting the risks involved. This is a little like the drunk driver who kills a family of four and then proclaims that it must be the car's fault because killing the family wasn't what he/she intended.

Perhaps it would be a good after-New Year's present to give a moonbat a dictionary.

Pay Us More or We'll Quit!

That's essentially what Chief Justice John Roberts said in his year-end report to Congress, according to law.com.

Issuing an eight-page message devoted exclusively to salaries, Roberts says the 678 full-time U.S. District Court judges, the backbone of the federal judiciary, are paid about half that of deans and senior law professors at top schools.

In the 1950s, 65 percent of U.S. District Court judges came from the practicing bar and 35 percent came from the public sector. Today the situation is reversed, Roberts said, with 60 percent from the public sector and less than 40 percent from private practice.

Federal district court judges are paid $165,200 annually; appeals court judges make $175,100; associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100.

Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years.

The issue of pay, says Roberts, "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis."

Roberts is correct that attorneys can make more than this in the field. The difference, of course, is that serving on the federal bench is also supposed to be a civic duty and have a certain level of prestige associated with it.

There are areas of the country where $200k is probably only worthy of a middle-class lifestyle, but given that the median household salary in 2004 was $43,389, Roberts probably won't find too much sympathy among the electorate.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

More on Dumb-but-Smart People

Richard Cohen has this piece in the Washington Post today on Monica Lewinsky and the way the press has done her wrong, including the columnI discussed at this post on Monica's master's thesis and the idea of dumb-but-smart people (smart people who do dumb things).

An approximation of this befalls us all, but before we got to become wise and prudent in all things we were probably irresponsible, outrageous and wild -- in other words, young.

Fortunately for me -- and probably this applies to you as well -- my outrageous deeds are known to only a few, and some of those people, after a lifetime of bad marriages and poor investments, have probably forgotten them. In Lewinsky's case, her youthful indiscretion has been forgotten by no one. On the contrary, it's recorded for the ages, in House and Senate proceedings, in the files of the creepy special prosecutor, in the databases of newspapers, in presidential histories and the musty joke files of second-rate comics.

She is a branded woman, not an adulterer but something even worse -- a girl toy, a trivial thing, a punch line. Yet she did what so many women at that age would do. She seduced (or so she thought) an older man. She fantasized that he would leave his wife for her. Here was her crime: She was a girl besotted.

Monica is the ultimate Girl with a Reputation, the one your mother warned you about. You would think, in this day and age, that such things wouldn't matter but they still do. Unfortunately for Lewinsky, no matter what else she manages to do with her life, her obit will always be about Bill Clinton and impeachment. That's her punishment, which is the appropriate word in her case, as opposed to the way moonbats use it in reference to pregnancy.

The weird part about Cohen's piece is his, at time, paternalistic attitude towards Lewinsky while decrying the sexism of the press. There's this:

Her clock ticks, her life ebbs. Where is the man for her? Where is the guy brave enough, strong enough, admirable enough to take her as his wife, to suffer the slings and arrows of her outrageous fortune -- to say to the world (for it would be the entire world) that he loves this woman who will always be an asterisk in American history. I hope there is such a guy out there. It would be nice. It would be fair.

followed by this:

It would be nice, too, and fair, also, if Lewinsky were treated by the media as it would treat a man. What's astounding is the level of sexism applied to her, as if the wave of the women's movement broke over a new generation of journalists and not a drop fell on any of them. Where, pray tell, is the man who is remembered just for sex? Where is the guy who is the constant joke for something he did in his sexually wanton youth? Maybe here and there some preacher, but in those cases the real subject matter is not sex but hypocrisy. Other than those, no names come to mind.

This is the year 2007, brand new and full of promise. It would be nice if my colleagues in the media would resolve to treat Monica Lewinsky as a lady(.)

As Ann Althouse notes,

Cohen's dreamy wish for a man to love Lewinsky isn't the least sexist thing I've ever read. I'm guessing Monica has all the boyfriends she wants. I'll bet they have lots of laughs sharing intimate gossip about the old man who transgressed to be with her. Why assume she wants to marry or marriage is some special solace that she needs? Why say her life is ebbing?

It is sexist and implies that Lewinsky is incomplete without a man to tell the world how much he loves this tainted woman. Why assume that is what she wants or what would wash away the stain of that little blue dress?

My suspicion is that Lewinsky has always tried to make the best of her circumstances, all things considered. She doesn't seem to be hiding in a tower waiting for Prince Charming to come rescue her.

Cohen's piece reminds me of all those people who don't "get it." They think that saying the press should "treat her like a lady" is what grown-up women want. What's missing in Cohen's piece is the idea of respect. What Lewinsky wants is respect.

Unfortunately, the indiscretions of her youth outweigh other factors in her favor because of the unusual quality of her circumstances, as well as residual sexism, even among so-called enlightened opinion writers.

Dog Trainer Year in Review 2006

Patterico has his annual Dog Trainer Year in Review up at his site. Always informative. Always entertaining.

Massachusetts Traditional Marriage Act Advances

It looks like Massachusetts is going to live up to its constitutional provision for initiative and referendum.

Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice to move forward.

Pam Spaulding is furious and compares, not for the first time, gay marriage with civil rights for black people.

As I said in the comments at my pad, with the character of people like Tucker, would it have been fine with her to let “the people” vote on whether I must sit at the back of the bus or drink from a separate fountain?

As I said in this post on the subject, comparing gay marriage with the civil rights movement is wrong on several counts, not the least of which being that the civil rights movement wasn't merely a movement of judicial decisions but of legislative enactments. This seems to be a point missed entirely by many gay marriage proponents.

It bears repeating that the same court system that gave us Plessy v. Ferguson could invalidate gay marriage just as easily as endorse it. If you want guaranteed rights, you have to legislate them.

The problem for gay marriage proponents is that a majority of Americans still do not favor it. It's much easier to persuade five justices than a majority of a legislator or the citizenry. This is the lesson that Pam and others chagrinned at the events in Massachusetts haven't learned: you have to persuade people of the rightness of your position because that's how democracy works.

I'm not entirely sure that a pro-traditional marriage amendment will pass in Massachusetts. There will certainly be enough time for gay marriage supporters to gin up their base before the election.

In any event, this is exactly the sort of thing the Massachusetts constitution requires popular support for. When you start redefining terms that have generally meant one thing for a couple of hundred years or so, it's most logical that those governed by the new definition get to decide if they want it.

But the New York Times Always Tells the Truth!

Well, no, they don't, especially if it's about abortion. Hot Air has a new Vent by Michelle Malkin discussing the NYT's deception concerning this story from last April.

The story claims that a woman in El Salvador was sent to prison for 30 years for having an abortion. But as See-Dubya pointed out Dec. 30, even the NYT ombudsman can't support the lies reported in the story.

About a month ago I noted an allegation that the New York Times Magazine had published an article that described a woman who was serving 30 years in a prison in El Salvador for getting an abortion. While abortion is illegal in El Salvador, the woman had actually been convicted of murder for strangling her newborn.
NYT Public Editor Byron Calame checked into it and found that, basically, the Times got it wrong–or, as he put it:

Accuracy and fairness were not pursued with the vigor Times readers have a right to expect.

See-Dubya gives a good analysis of both what went wrong and what the Times should have done. Read the rest of the post for more.

UPDATE: Here's a link to Malkin's column on this incident.

Maternal Profiling

Women's eNews has this interesting column on a practice I thought had gone out of style with the beehive hairdo: maternal profiling.

Evidently there are still states where it isn't illegal to ask a woman in a job interview about her marital status and whether or not she has children.

Only 22 states and Puerto Rico specifically prohibit employers from inquiring about applicants' marital status. That means "maternal profiling" is a real problem for many women.

Just ask Kiki Peppard.

For 12 years Peppard, a single mother, has campaigned to get Pennsylvania to make it illegal for employers to ask about an applicant's marital or familial status. Last week, on Nov. 30, the bill died its most recent death when committee chairmen refused to allow it to move to the floor of the state House and Senate for a vote.

This bill has not only failed with legislators, it's also been pretty much of a non-starter with the press.

I'm surprised the press hasn't been more interested in this, given their feminist leanings in most areas surrounding women and work. The idea that there are still employers asking women if they are married and/or have children is boorish and intrusive.

I've been in a few similar interviews where the interviewer was trying to find out if I had children without coming out and asking. It's perfectly legal in most states to do so.

Most people think such questions (aside from being intrusive) are illegal, but as Kiki Peppard has found out in Pennsylvania, there's not always much sympathy for women who say this is no one's business.

"I've sent numerous letters to female news anchors, the cast of 'The View,' Katie Couric, '60 Minutes,' '20/20,' 'Primetime,' you name it. No reply. I've sent letters to Paula Zahn. No reply," Peppard says. "I've written to Oprah twice a year for 12 years, asking if she would do a story about this on her show."

This is certainly one of those issues that should get women (and families) exercised. Ensuring that such inappropriate questions be barred from the job interview process should be a priority of feminists.

"What I can't stress enough is that this legislation impacts all women, not just mothers," Peppard says. "I can't tell you how many women have told me that they were asked during job interviews when they planned to become pregnant. Do you know of any male asked during a job interview when he planned to get someone pregnant or if he ever did?"

Maybe he should change his name to Smith

According to the Raw Story,

A Monday night broadcast of CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer confused America's "number one enemy" with one of America's most popular senators, RAW STORY has learned. CNN apologized for the error, which came after a series of incidents in recent months in which Illinois Democrat Senator Barack Obama was subtly or directly linked with militant Islamic personalities who have been hostile to the United States.

During a January 1st broadcast of Wolf Blitzer's nightly news program, a pre-commercial preview of the show's next segment included a story on the hunt for Al Qaeda's leadership. Over a photo of Osama Bin Laden and his second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Blitzer stated, according to the transcript, "Plus, a new year, but the same mission. Will 2007 bring any new changes in the hunt for Osama bin Laden?"

But instead of asking "Where's Osama?" the graphic over the two Islamists read "Where's Obama?" referencing the surname of popular Illinois Democratic Senator Barack Obama.

I feel sorry for the senator, not just because his last name is so similar to America's number one terrorist's first name, but having the middle name Hussein is a handicap, as well. I can't imagine four years of these sorts of mistakes. Maybe he should just start going by Barak.

Ann Coulter Is a Goddess

As I commented over at Common Sense Political Thought, I love telling liberals when they rant against Ann Coulter that I think she's a "goddess." It's usually good for a belly laugh when they come unglued about it and it's oh, so much fun that they can't recognize the tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheekishness of my comment.

Now Dana has a post showing Ann's popularity, stating that imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery.

I love the covers. What I love most is what they actually say about the writers, rather than the topic of their hatred. Judging from the review Dana references, they also miss her smartness, wittiness, and reparte, as well.

Now for the Disgusting Comparison of 2007

The new year is only a little over 30 hours old for me and already I have a nomination for Disgusting Comparison of the Year. It's Chris Kelly at Huffington Post.

One way to think about the last few days - the deaths of Gerry Ford, Saddam Hussein and James Brown - is to imagine them like the final half-hour of The Godfather, with the Bush Family settling all scores. Ford for some internecine slight at the convention in 76, Saddam for not taking orders, James Brown for making drunk driving look so much cooler than when a preppie does it.

It's all connected. How many guys worked with Gerry Ford and Saddam Hussein? Only Bush button man Donald Rumsfeld. Eerie. Plus Rumsfeld tortures prisoners and James Brown served time and recorded "Please, Please, Please."

All this to pan The Good Shepherd.

Yes, I'm waiting for the snarky comments about how certain rogue conservatives accused Bill Clinton of murdering a variety of inconvenient people, plus drug running, just to keep his presidential ambitions "viable."

The difference, of course, is that, with the notable exception of Rev. Jerry Falwell, most conservatives rejected the allegations made.

I'm just not sure how many conservative columnists (although Bill Clinton was probably the catalyst for the conservative publishing industry) spent much time comparing Clinton to the Godfather. Or, for that matter, how many of them essentially accused a sitting president of wiping out famous people who could only be connected in a six-degrees-of-separation kind of way.

What Kelly's comment mainly shows is the moonbat blindness of the left and why even the more logical arguments they make get lost in the noise machine.

Cross-posted at Common Sense Political Thought.

Sunni Muslims Protest Saddam's Hanging

From the A.P.:

Sunnis Muslims, angered by the execution of Saddam Hussein and the way his hanging was carried out, took to the streets in mainly peaceful demonstrations in Sunni enclaves across the country.

A crowd of Sunni mourners in Samarra marched to a bomb-damaged Shiite shrine Monday and were allowed by guards and police to enter the holy place carrying a mock coffin and photos of the former dictator.

The protest took place at the Golden Dome, which was shattered in a bombing by Sunni extremists 10 months ago. That attack triggered the current cycle of retaliatory attacks between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, in the form of daily bombings, kidnappings and murders.

Nice to see them learning the art of peaceful protest despite the blood-thirsty predictions of the left. Then there was this:

Iraqi authorities, meanwhile, reported Monday that 16,273 Iraqis — including 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers — died violent deaths in 2006. The total exceeds the Associated Press count by more than 2,500.

How does one get from 16,000 to 600,000 and still be accurate?

Doctors Recommend Testing for Down Syndrome

The A.P. is reporting that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is now recommending that all pregnant women receive a new type of test to screen for Down Syndrome.

The newest method, topping ACOG's recommendation for everyone, is a first-trimester screening that combines blood tests with a simple ultrasound exam, called a "nuchal translucency test" to measure the thickness of the back of the fetal neck.

Studies from England, where the nuchal translucency combo has been used for about a decade, and the U.S. conclude that screening method is more than 80 percent accurate, with a very small risk of falsely indicating Down syndrome in a healthy fetus. It is performed between 11 and 13 weeks into pregnancy, and women are usually given numerical odds of carrying an affected fetus.

Back in this post, I discussed that geneticists have discovered that our DNA is more complicated than they originally thought. Because we can have multiple pairs of one gene and zero pairs of another and still be normal, the group was questioning the accuracy of tests such as those used for Down Syndrome. I had wondered how many perfectly normal babies were aborted because their mothers had mistakenly thought they were Down's babies.

The testing is not mandatory and women can still determine whether or not they want the tests at all.

Breaking 1,000

Sometime in the night, this blog broke 1,000 visits. Not bad for an obscure blog that's only three months old. And considering I didn't even install the site meter until December, long after the Pandagonistas had had their hysterical temper tantrum because I quoted them.

Sounds like a law school exam question

According to this article at law.com,

A franchisor cannot be held liable for the alleged negligence of a franchisee merely because they have a relationship, a Suffolk County, N.Y., judge has ruled in dismissing a claim against 7-Eleven lodged by a customer splashed with hot coffee.

Supreme Court Justice Robert W. Doyle granted summary judgment dismissing a suit against the company by Eugene Nickola, who alleges he was injured during an altercation between another customer and an employee of a Greenport 7-Eleven.

In Nickola v. 7-Eleven, 03-13494, Doyle explained that in determining whether a franchisor may be held vicariously liable for the acts of its franchisee, the most important factor to consider is the degree of control the franchisor maintains over the daily operations of the franchisee. Here, the judge found, 7-Eleven exercised no control over the activities that led to Nickola's injury.

Law school exams are filled with fact patterns like this one:

Nickola was present on May 22, 2002, when Mahmud began struggling with a customer for possession of a coffee pot. Nickola was standing shoulder to shoulder with the customer but was not involved in the dispute.

In his examination before trial, Nickola testified that Mahmud wrenched the pot away and threw the coffee at the customer, but the liquid missed its target and instead hit Nickola on his head, neck and shoulder.

Shahnawaz Baig, manager of the store, testified that the coffee was brewing when the customer picked up the pot. He said that Mahmud intervened and, in the ensuing struggle, both the employee and Nickola were splashed.

Nickola, and his wife are seeking compensation for his personal injuries.

...and are usually followed by the word "discuss."

It also reminded me of first year legal writing, where they will give you the above fact pattern and assign half the class to defend the plaintiff and the other half to defend the defendant. Ah, the memories!

Fortunately, those days are gone for me. These days, I can just look at a story like this one and reminisce about some professor grilling you for 20 minutes trying to trip up your logic.

Coffee spewer

From (where else?) Amanda at Pandagon:

Seriously, sharon, if you don’t like sex, just be out with it. That’s great. You don’t have to be angry with the rest of us who do like it. I know you doubt it, the way you carry on, but women do have sex because we want to.

It would come as quite a surprise to my husband that I don't like sex. In fact, it would be quite a surprise to me, too.

But this statement just shows how illogical they are: if you disapprove of abortion and think people should actually think about the consequences--er punishment (sorry, still getting used to the code language) of sex before they hop into bed, then you don't like sex. That's news to a lot of pro-lifers, even those with a small number of children.

How Republican (Democrat) Are You?

I just took the How Republican Are You? quiz, via Common Sense Political Thought. Not surprisingly, I'm Republican, but I'm not as Republican as I would have thought.

You Are 72% Republican

You have a good deal of elephant running through your blood, and you're proud to be conservative. You don't fit every Republican stereotype, but you definitely belong in the Republican party.

How Republican Are You?

There's a Democrat test, too. I didn't do very well with that one.

You Are 4% Democrat

If you have anything in common with the Democrat party, it's by sheer chance. You're a staunch conservative, and nothing is going to change that!

How Democrat Are You?

I'm trying to figure out what the other 24% of me is.