Don Edwards

Vegetarians eat vegetables. What do humanitarians eat?

Well, Rhoda can get some keys out, drop them, bend over to pick them up, and while bent over deposit Cat on the ground and do all necessary resizing.

If he said that he wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage so that American workers can compete with foreign workers, it would count. If he said that he wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage so that states could set minimum wages (or choose to have no minimum), without federal restraint, based on their own economic conditions, then no, that wouldn't count. If he said that he wants to eliminate the federal minimum wage because it's not within the scope of federal authority (unless the worker crosses state lines as part of the job), that also wouldn't count. If he said that he wanted to eliminate the federal minimum wage so that kids whose records mean no sane person would risk $10-$12 an hour (including employer taxes and benefits) on them could legally offer them a job at a lower wage, so they can - we hope - start building a better record that qualifies them for a higher-paying job, then no, that wouldn't count either. If an employer thinks that a particular potential employee in a particular job is not a good bet to deliver benefit to the employer greater than the job's wages plus employer taxes and benefits, the employer does not hire that person. Perhaps the employer would, at a lower price. If an employer thinks that nobody could take on a particular job and deliver benefit to the employer greater than the minimum wage plus employer taxes and benefits, that job does not exist, and nobody gets hired. Maybe if the minimum wage were lower the job would exist, and someone would get hired and start building a work history that will help qualify them for a higher-paying job. Because, really, the minimum wage is precisely what it always has been and always will be: zero. The question is, what is the next step up from zero? The bigger it is, the more people there are who won't be able to reach it. And if they can't reach that step, the next one up from there is going to also be beyond them. But there's another good reason for Trump to want to repeal the minimum wage: perhaps he knows about the racist origin and effect of it.

I don't know of anyone who's explicitly advocating a national policy of paying Americans less so they can compete with foreigners. (Every company pursuing H1B visas for potential employees would prefer for its competitors to NOT be able to get them.) I know of people advocating paying both immigrants and natives more while continuing current immigration policies, and people advocating having fewer immigrants (particularly illegal immigrants) which would have the effect of raising wages in general - particularly in those fields the immigrants tend to congregate in - because of that old supply-and-demand thing. And, oddly, people who advocate having MORE immigrants, particularly entry-level-job immigrants, and simultaneously advocate RAISING wages for entry-level jobs. That DOES NOT WORK, unless there is a shortage of entry-level labor (there isn't), and the attempt is likely to be damaging to people who have or seek entry-level jobs. Depending on how it is attempted, it can also damage retirees, pension funds, and others relying on assets denominated in a fixed amount of money without inflation adjustment (while, incidentally, benefiting debtors... such as governments that run deficits). Now there are some people who are saying that if - and to the extent that - American workers can't offer anything that third-world workers don't, their choices in the long run are to accept third-world-level wages or to be replaced by third-world workers for any good or service that can be shipped at reasonable cost. That isn't a policy proposal. It's an observation on the basic laws of economics. Those are the three choices, in the long run, no matter what policies the government pursues. (And the same three choices apply, replacing "third-world" with "robot".) It is clearly beyond the US government's power - AND beyond its responsibility - to raise the wages of third-world workers.

At certain times of year, the two expressions are synonymous.

Not even close. Grrl Power took over 4 years to get through about 18 hours.

It doesn't only happen to Dorothy either...

In addition, I suspect that flying transformed consumes more magical energy than standing on the ground transformed (assuming similar transformation in the two cases). And then he enlarged his transformation and flew faster.

What I'm thinking is that Rhoda did an enlargement spell that affects her and her clothes. Rhoda also did a shrinking spell that affects Catalina. And then moved Catalina into the scope of her enlargement spell. If the spells rub off on each other, we could see Catalina enlarging and (at least) Rhoda's jacket-front shrinking.

Hammerspace. Hey, I'm writing characters who can gain or lose 800-1400 pounds (one set amount per character, and they have to alternate between gaining and losing) in a split second, with no known limit on how often or frequently they do so. Relativity is obviously out on its lunch break. (Certain other aspects of physics are NOT, though. Putting on that much weight that quickly tends to cause severe damage to clothing.)

The challenge was not for one person to name two Clinton policies that another person disagreed with... The Heller decision essentially confirmed that the 2nd Amendment has the same legal standing as the 1st. If you think it would be reasonable to allow anyone to say anything the government approves of, provided they submit to a background check and get a government license (paying a fee for both) first, then I can understand why you wouldn't mind having the Heller decision overturned.

Overturning the Heller decision. Continued support for Obamacare. Continued arming of non-police federal agencies. Continued warmongering. Continued massive immigration. Continued non-enforcement of laws regarding illegal immigrants. Will that do? (As Clinton herself said, "before it was known as Obamacare, it was known as Hillarycare". The Washington state legislature enacted Hillarycare in 1993. It was obviously bad by the end of the year, and obviously horribly bad by the middle of the next year. In the 1994 legislative election, most incumbents who didn't publicly pledge to repeal it were voted out - replaced by people who did make that pledge. The 1995 legislative session DID repeal it, and replaced it with a system that seemed to work passably well - until it was replaced by Obamacare.)

Yeah, they worked a lot better when I made my browser window NOT full-screen...

Neither major party has nominated a candidate for US President that I thought was any good in the last three decades, but this election they gave us the two most-undesirable candidates in that period. It's also the first time in 30 years that I thought one of them would be enough worse than the other to make voting for the lesser evil worthwhile. (Granted, one prior winner turned out to be quite a bit worse than I expected.)

As for the electoral-college effort to stop Trump: Clinton needs at least 38 Republican electors to vote *for her*. Abstentions and votes for some-third-person don't help her much - for the electoral college to settle the election, one candidate must get the votes of a majority of all electors appointed. The most that votes for not-Trump-or-Clinton can do is throw the election to the House of Representatives where each state will get one vote, and the Republicans presumptively lead 33-17. There is at least one Democrat elector who has publicly pledged to NOT vote for Clinton. That doesn't help Trump any (unless that elector votes for him, but she's a Sanders supporter) but it certainly hurts Clinton. In US history to date, the number of electors from one major party who voted for the Presidential candidate from the other major party is: ONE. If I remember my reading correctly, that was in 1800. There has been only one occasion where 38 or more electors failed to vote for their party's candidate for President. On that occasion, said candidate had two relevant attributes: (1) he had lost the election fairly badly anyway, and (2) he was dead. And the electors voted for other people from the same party. Once about 20 electors declined to vote for their party's candidate for VICE president (abstaining), because he openly kept a slave woman as his mistress; he won the election anyway. Incidentally, in that same election two or three electors for the other party also didn't vote as directed. I don't think Clinton can win this way.

It's also been determined that cats falling a certain distance (or more) technically don't land on their feet... instead they land on all four legs, their stomachs, their chests, their tails, and their chins. The spread-eagle position probably slightly lowers their terminal velocity, so they don't hit the ground quite as hard, and then it spreads the impact over the largest possible area and minimizing the stress on the legs, hips, shoulders, and spine.

Anything over 50% alcohol (100 proof) is potentially usable as a fuel in a suitably-designed engine - provided you do not try to mix it with hydrocarbons. Purifying alcohol to 50% to 80% purity isn't hard or particularly energy-intensive if you have equipment designed for it. I've seen solar-powered still designs that do the job. If you want to mix the alcohol with hydrocarbons, you need something like 99.5% pure alcohol. That is quite difficult and quite energy-intensive.

That kind of firepower, even in paintball, would have a serious risk of being lethal. (Drowning the target with so much "paint", if nothing else.)

Count me as another who really doesn't like Trump but thinks Clinton is much worse.

That's because there hasn't been an exoneration yet. What Comey described in his speech a few months ago, announcing his decision not to recommend an indictment, laid out the basis for numerous consecutive 5-year terms in federal prison. Just on the mishandling of classified information. But he chose to describe her actions in the terms of one law, and then explain how a different law didn't apply, and on that basis not pursue prosecution. Specifically, he said he wasn't recommending prosecution because of a lack of criminal intent. But he could have recommended prosecution on the basis of gross negligence - and (contrary to his assertion during the speech) there are in fact people currently in federal prison because of gross negligence, without criminal intent, in handling classified information.

Yeah, in every rendition I've ever seen he looked so much better - and more real - before he got changed back to human. (Haven't seen the new one, probably won't.)

You ain't kidding. Energy equivalent to exploding a few dozen megatons of TNT. Which is a lot of energy to just borrow, will-ye-nil-ye, for a summoning - and then, if the summoning isn't persistent, to put back later - without anyone noticing. So it MUST be borrowed from somewhere non-magical people can't perceive - such as magical energy. The problem with that is shapeshifting species whose natural form is larger and heavier than some of their other forms - if they run out of magical energy, they shift heavier, which according to this theory would consume the magical energy they don't have. (As it happens, I'm writing some centaurs who can shift to human form, typically losing at least 800 pounds in the process.)

I don't know that Dex's fairy having persistence would have been mentioned at the time. The kids didn't have all that much experience with summoned fairies - Nanase's fairydolls have always been permanent. None of their other summons have been persistent, but that isn't a huge sample size either. So if Dex's fairy is permanent, they probably wouldn't have realized that the fact was noteworthy.

One problem I see with shrinking by curving space is that light traveling between the shrunk object and the viewer would also be curved, so the object would not appear to be shrunk. And if you magically exempt light, then a person shrunk to 1/7 scale can't see. You need to exempt only light that will enter said shrunk person's eyes. Another problem with this notion is mass. It means that Catalina at 1/7 scale weighs the same as at full size. Rhoda does not look to me like the sort of girl who normally walks around carrying a 120-pound object somewhere on her person.

Catalina can ride on Rhoda's back, concealed by her hair.