For the love of God, boys, stop squabbling about the property tax and schools thing; it was me. And yes, as best I can find, 40 percent of school funding comes from local sources like property taxes, so in fact I must be paying something in my taxes towards schooling (which I am not in the least unhappy to be doing). But it doesn't take away from my original point in that thread, which was that schools in rich areas get more money because of higher property taxes than schools in poor areas and that makes poor schooling in poor areas a vicious cycle. Sakes alive, people, let it go! Some folks on here get so set on proving a trivial point they completely ignore the point of the original argument.
(Please note the use of "they" was correct as "people" is plural.)
Now, can we get away from all the snarking and back to how Bush and Co. fired a bunch of lawyers for not being suitably partisan?
Info on school funding, for anyone who still cares:
http://www.givekidsgoodschools.org/s...ol_Funding.htm
And the Gonzo meter (today's chance of Gonzales being fired, 75 percent):
http://www.slate.com/id/2162666?nav=tap3
And, on women inventors:
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0906931.html
"Mystery Inventors
We'll probably never know how many women inventors there were. That's because in the early years of the United States, a woman could not get a patent in her own name. A patent is considered a kind of property, and until the late 1800s laws forbade women in most states from owning property or entering into legal agreements in their own names. Instead, a woman's property would be in the name of her father or husband.
For example, many people believe that Sybilla Masters was the first American woman inventor. In 1712 she developed a new corn mill, but was denied a patent because she was a woman. Three years later the patent was filed successfully in her husband's name."
Does the windshield wiper count as a moving part?
Mary Anderson, 1903