Weekend Assignment #321: Where's Your Buggy Whip?

Let's get right to it:

Weekend Assignment #321: Where's Your Buggy Whip?
NOW CLOSED!

We sometimes hear the expression, "XXX has gone the way of the buggy whip." In other words, technology and society have moved on, and something that was once commonplace barely exists anymore because it's no longer needed. Do you still have something in your home that has become essentially useless? If so, why do you still have it? If not, when did you get rid of it?

Extra Credit: Have you ever worked in an industry that has gone the way of the buggy whip, or is in danger of doing so?

Here are the guidelines for participating:

1. Please post your response no later than than 9:00 PM, EDT on Wednesday, June 9th. You can do this either in a blog entry of your own or in the comments section of the assignment entry.

2. Please mention the Weekend Assignment in your blog post, and include a link back to the original entry. Using one of the logos shown here is encouraged but not mandatory.

3. Please come back here after you've posted, and leave a link to your entry in the comments to the assignment. Please post the URL itself rather than a live link.

4. Visiting other participants' entries is strongly encouraged!

5. We're always looking for topic ideas. Please see the "Teacher's Lounge" page for details. If we use your idea, you will be credited as that week's "guest professor."

6. We reserve the right to remove rude or unpleasant comments (not to mention comment spam), and to leave entries off the linking list if the person has been rude or unpleasant, or fails to mention the Weekend Assignment in his or her entry.


Last week, for Weekend Assignment #320: THE SCOTUS Choice, Carly asked for your thoughts about the recent Supreme Court nominee. Click on each name to read the full entry.


Freda said in comments...

Being Canadian, I am indifferent as to who gets appointed. Doesn't mean I do not have an opinion, it just means mine doesn't count.

Julie said...

What bothers me, however, is the increasing level of vitriol I've seen surrounding her nomination. Hey, I have no problem with anyone who wants to question her legal or judicial qualifications for the job, but to paint her as gay based on her appearance is just plain wrong. Then there are the types who utterly dismiss anything that comes out of the president's mouth. It's wrong now just as it was during the last administration and the one before that.

Anne said...

My politics are rather mixed. I like my judges liberal, my executives conservative and my legislature to be a mixed bag. I have long thought the Supreme Court in need of a shift although interestingly, Wikipedia says that the liberals think she is too conservative and might shift the balance in the other direction.

Stephen said...

To start: no, I don’t have any strong feelings about nominee Elena Kagan, per se. She was dean of Harvard Law School, which means she’s smart, and knows a lot about the law, which is important for a Supreme Court Justice but, in itself, is insufficient to qualify her for the job. She also had a reputation for bridging the gap between the left and right on campus, which could also prove helpful for a Supreme Court Justice, whose role is to theoretically to be apolitical and focus on fairly interpreting the law. Again, however, this is insufficient as a qualification, per se. And that about sums up my knowledge of Kagan. She has good things going for her in the smarts department, but beyond that, I can’t comment further.

Trevor said...

Before you accuse me of selling out, and going over to the enemy, hold up. It has absolutely nothing to do with her gender, ethnic background, hair color, or any of the other asinine reasons the bigots of Beck and Limbaugh’s ilk will claim. It’s her complete lack of experience as a judge. I just don’t want any decision she weighs in on smeared with the “she doesn’t know what she’s doing” tag. I’m not saying that having been a judge previously makes you infallible, just witness Scalia’s one man war against worker safety the last ten years. And yes, she is of a higher moral character than some on that high bench right now*cough* Thomas* . But her appointment would open up a whole can of worms that I really don’t want opened for the Supreme Court.

Karen said...

There is a claim that she's a consensus builder, which could be good, and she seems likely to sail through her confirmation, because Republicans have been hard-pressed to find any dirt on her. Yes, good, fine; but what kind of consensus can she build on the Supreme Court as it stands now? President Obama may know, but I certainly don't. Nobody else seems to know, either. It could be that this bright legal mind will help balance out the right-leaning court, but there's precious little indication of that. My worry is that President Obama has gone for a safe, inoffensive choice here, rather than one calculated to start undoing the damage caused by the increasingly activist conservative court.

Hey, I'm impressed, you guys! I wondered whether people would shy away from this WA, but you came through magnificently. Thanks, folks! Happy writing!

Karen