I am a subversive.

Yes, I admit it!  Freely!  Proudly, even!

I, you see, just taught Goose to sum arbitrary geometric and arithmetic series.

She's nine years old, and in fourth grade.

Her teachers are going to hate us, if she hasn't forgotten it by the next time she comes to a number series problem.

Political career meme

( Sanitized for your protection. )

Congressional timewasting

So, once again, the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance is in the news, as Congress attempts to tell the Supreme Court that they are forbidden from hearing any case on the Pledge of Allegiance.  (I wish them good luck with it, as I suspect if they do manage to get the bill past the Senate as well and signed into law by the President, the very first time the issue comes up the Supreme Court will simply rule the bill unconstitutional on the grounds that Congress lacks the authority to limit the Supreme Court's Constitutional authority to judge the law.)

Anyway, it seems to me the whole issue is rather silly.  To forbid the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge is apparently offensive to many Christians.  To mandate the inclusion of the same words can justifiably be taken as offensive to Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, Shintoists, atheists, followers of Wakantanka, etc, etc, etc.  Either can be considered religious discrimination.  Strict Muslims probably cannot take the Pledge with "under God" included without violating the religious strictures of Islam, which require them to affirm that there is no god but Allah.  (Unfortunately, in the current climate, a lot of idiots will probably think that's a good and sufficient reason for having them there.)

Well, come ON, people!  What's the big problem here?  Simply declare those two words OPTIONAL.  Declare the Pledge equally valid with or without them, and forbid anyone (under the religious-freedom clause) from compelling anyone else to either include them or omit them.  This discriminates against nobody, and ought to keep everyone happy -- except, of course, for the control-freak thought-police types who think they have a divine mandate to tell everyone else how to live their lives, and it'll show them up publicly for what they are.

Discuss.

---

Update:  tquid correctly points out that followers of some religions are forbidden from taking any such oath at all.  While not an insignificant point, and one that I had missed, this has more to do with the issue of whether anyone should be able to refuse the Pledge for religious reasons (which I propose that the First Amendment says they should), than with the presence or absence of specific words therein.  If religious strictures forbid you from taking the pledge at all, its wording is somewhat moot.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg labels motorcyclists as organ-donors

Reported by AMA DirectLink.  I can't improve on their coverage, so without further ado, here it is, annotated....

( Cut for your friends page's protection )

If you ride or number a rider among your friends or family, drop this asshat a line and tell him what YOU think.  Oh yeah -- don't forget to make some cheap crack about sad, pudgy little middle-aged guys who think they're funny.  After all, I'm sure Neil would be disappointed if you didn't write up to his standards.