Academic Research Laboratories

They are funny places. There is no standard for how they are run and what works for one person could easily be considered awful to another. That said, there are a few generalities for how things will work.

PI: The principle investigator is (usually) the professor in charge of the lab. He/she can be identified on journal articles as being an author to whom correspondence should be addressed (typically named last). The PI is the idea person. PI's, of course, do lots else: teach (generally), write papers, write grant proposals, give seminars/lectures, sit on committees (for doctoral students), and generally guide the direction of the lab. Typically these all go hand in hand and the best PIs are good at all of them. Universities tend to care about grants first and teaching a distant second (at smaller schools, not so much).

Grad students: Graduate students are the backbone of the lab. They know the techniques, who/where to go (to). They are the experts within a lab. They are there longer, and generally have at least one year of training before anything is really expected of them. They may take time to find what they like doing best, and they may drift through several projects, but they are where the work comes from.

Post-docs: Post doctoral associates are a bit of an oddity. Their education makes them senior, and they are typically experts in a field, but they are not (usually) the most capable lab members. This is not because they are poor technicians or that they can't learn, but because that is seldom their focus. Post-docs are stuck in between PI and grad student. Under the best of conditions a post-doc will come into a project that has others working on it and will provide some new idea/ability. Maybe they will have better ideas on how to analyze a molecule/material. Maybe they will know a technique that is well suited to a problem. Maybe they will have a background that makes them better able to judge a technique and determine what should be done to improve it. Utilizing a post-doc's strengths is, in large part, the responsibility of the PI. Failure to understand what those strengths are, is the fault of the post-doc.

Obviously post-docs are problematic. But even more so than was mentioned. In chemistry most post-docs are around for two years, three tops. They are often interested in becoming PIs on their own at other universities and have to spend a large amount of time preparing for that (research proposals, teaching philosophy, grant searching, ...). This also means, however, that they have research goals which they wish to pursue independently. This creates problems. In graduate school, much of the time a student spends thinking about research, they are thinking about their research in the lab. A post-doc spends some portion of that time thinking about their potential future research. The time frame for applying means that a PI is not likely to get nearly as much dedication from a post-doc as a grad student (this is financially sort of fair as post-docs are often cheaper than grad students because of the no tuition thing). Post-docs that come into a situation in which they are expected to pursue research largely independently are not in a good spot. Things become worse if the research (techniques, background, etc.) is fairly new to them, i.e. not what they did as grad students.

In fact the primary motivation for productivity as a post-doc is that it is helpful/necessary to get that next job. In the face of things not going well: bad results, highly tuned techniques, little in the way of bench assistance (provided or offered), motivation ebbs. ...I would say that the primary motivation should be learning, but I've been told that I'm somewhat of an idealist in this regard and that universities prefer lock-step productivity to idealistic intellectualism (ignoring the fact that it is the latter that provides society with its greatest breakthroughs and achievements).

Banking

I mentioned before that banks are evil. That position still holds, and for the same reasons (the Washington Mutual commercials really piss me off), but the Nobel peace prize this year went to Muhammad Yunus, who was on the Daily Show last night, "for their efforts to create economic and social development from below." I like this guy. A whole bunch. Now, I'm paraphrasing but one of the first things he said was that in wealthy countries (US) you need to have something to get a loan. If you want to borrow $10000, then you need to: give the bank $10000, give the bank something worth at least $10000 or pay credit card interest or worse. This is not something that makes sense, unless you are a bank owner and want to make bucketloads of money for doing next to nothing. If you want people to have some sort of upward mobility or for people to get out of debt and be able to live decent (meaning able to provide food and shelter) lives, then this is backwards.

Dr. Yunus' bank provides loans for only a few tens to hundreds of dollars to people with very little (including beggars). They do get their money back, and people move upward. This will never, ever, ever happen in this country. There is no motivation (especially from GOP types who promote their "moral values") to do something that will help people without providing a profit, but imagine that there was. Someone homeless, who is panhandling on the city streets could go into a bank and get a loan for $100, which that person could use to get some clean clothes and a cheap hotel room where they could clean up, and embark for job interviews. (You may not be aware, but ragged, smelly people have trouble finding employment...even at McDonald's.)

Now, here's the rub. Is that true in this country? I would like to say "yes," but I really don't know. Quite a few people have entered this country illegally and they seem to be getting their share of employment despite incurring heavy debt to get here and to get fake documents (more to bring family), and despite speaking little to no english, so is that homeless man who wants change I don't have really unable to get a job? I don't know, but I suspect the answer is yes. Anti-wellfare/unemployment types would say "no" but I suspect the ability to get a job is not something as easy as "can you get cleaned up?" and "can you use a shovel?" Of course this comes back to whether giving out $100 loans would help. Somehow, I really do not think it would much. Some people, sure, but not all, and maybe not most. Part of this is because $100 really does not get you much in this country, but part of it is because people are probably not unemployed and homeless for such easy-to-solve reasons.

Speaker Pelosi

I wonder if there would be as much gossip style reporting about Speaker elect Pelosi if her first name was Nathan. There is talk of personal vendettas and cat fights and it seems to me that there is far more of that on the other side of the aisle. Executive employees who stepped out of line w/ Commander Codpiece's dictums would find themselves on the outside looking in. Senate minority leadership was a 25-24 vote in favor of the borderline racist Trent Lott, who was supported by McCain (who has spent the past 2+ years destroying his credibility among moderates by planting his nose firmly in dubbya's derrière and pleading for GOP base support).

Pelosi may be great and she may be a miserable failure, but her supporting someone who will agree with her over someone who will not is hardly surprising and Murtha's loss there isn't really, either. If this congress can not take action starting in January, then, maybe, there can be discussion regarding how fit she is for the job. Until and unless, shut it. There are issues this lame duck president and congress want to deal with in the last session, and there are more that the Dems want to deal with come January. I don't care if Nancy holds grudges and uses personal grievances to dictate her policy. I just care if she can be effective, and there is no real indicator yet that she can not, unless you are sexist of course.

New congress!

There are all sorts of reasons to be happy about this, but I am really excited about 2: education, and civil liberties/personal freedoms. I put research funding under education, otherwise it would be on the list too. There are more, of course, and there are selfish reasons for my choices.

Like one of the things that I am personally hoping for is for congress to make good on a promise back in the 90's to double funding for fundamental sciences. The NIH got it money, but the NSF did not. I think that quite a few problems have come out of that discrepancy, and straightening it out will lead to another boom in technological advances. (Things really have slowed up over the past ~10 years.) I may come back to this.

In an extension of the personal freedoms thing I also have a hope that they will be able to stop corporate profiling of consumers. I hate the notion that every (credit/debit card) purchase I make is tracked and used against me somehow, but I really like using plastic and shopping/paying bills online. Republicans have made heavy use of such corporate machinery to target voters with specific issue mailers and the like. It's more than a little creepy.

Death Penalty

I am opposed to the death penalty. It is not fairly implemented (state to state, rich vs poor, ...). It is not really sufficiently punative--a criminal who does not understand the wrong of his/her actions is always getting off easy. Mostly it dehumanizes the punishers: the prosecution, victims families, excecutioner, etc. While I am opposed to it, however, I think arguments like this are a total sham. We can kill people, but potentially causing them pain is wrong? Fat people have a greater right to stayed executions than the skinny? Unadulterated bullshit. If anyone wants to argue against the death penalty, then go for it, but this pussyfooted crap is sickening. Most people would probably rather be beaten than killed, even if it were to result in permanent damage (loss of limb, disfigurement) but we can't do that. Breaking someone's leg is cruel and unusual but killing them is peachy. It is a hypocritcal double standard.

As much as I am opposed to the death penalty I would support punishment that would be considered cruel and unusual. Criminals should spend every waking hour with chatising words (recorded) assaulting them. The recording should cover 12 hrs of total material and should be changed (volume, tone, etc) on a daily or weekly basis so that it does not become background. Criminals who show no remorse should be forced to do so by such means or others. No need for sleep depravation or torture, in fact the opposite. "These people died while you live in relative comfort in this cell." Pain and fear are not restorative tools. The do not breed truly sorry individuals. Guilt, illicited through psychological tools, on the other hand, can be devastating. Of course that would be wrong, so just kill 'em instead, but make sure it doesn't hurt.

Joke

Some engineering students were shooting the bull in the dorm one night, and began to talk about the nature of God. They all agreed immediately that God was an engineer, but what kind?
One said, "God is a structural engineer. Look at the human body, with its skeletal system and circulatory system -- pure design perfection."

The second said, "Ah, but what runs this human body? The brain! The nervous system! God is an electrical/chemical engineer!"

The third one, quiet till then, said, "Yes, but who but a civil engineer runs a waste disposal system through a recreational area?"

Phone Interviews

I just had one. I will say that I do not particularly care for them. I much prefer in person meetings/talks/interviews. Over the phone timing is more awkward, interruptions can occur more readily. I also feel compelled to say things and continue and often feel afterward as though the conversation, on my part, was forced. Moreover, not actually seeing the people interviewing you, makes it harder to get a feeling for how things are going or went, which leads to searching for flubs and mistakes, of which you will always find/remember many. In addition I have to concentrate much harder on what is being said, and really work to not get distracted. The amount of effort that this takes me is phenomenal, and that is when I am very interested in the goings on of the phone call, as I was for this interview. In this case I was additionally thrown off by the fact that I forgot about the one hour time difference and the call came an hour earlier than I expected it. I didn't have anything to drink and my mouth went dry over the course of the interview. That only provided me with further distraction. I'll find out how it went for sure in a few days.

Banning Tag?!?

Holy shit. I know there are stupid rules due to fear of lawsuits, but this one really burns me up. Actually, it wouldn't be so bad, and I would probably simply consider it funny sad, except for this:

"Another Willett parent, Celeste D'Elia, said her son feels safer because of the rule. 'I've witnessed enough near collisions,' she said."

First off: her son feels safer? Is he a loser or are the other kids in his school little shits? There were myriad tag style games when I was in grade school and I remember not everyone playing. Hell, I don't think that I played all the time. It went something like this: "Hey, ____, do you want to play tag?" "Not really." "Okay, hey, (someone else), do you..." Sometimes tag was not played. Kids that didn't play were not picked on and ridiculed, well, not for that anyway, kids can be nasty. If any child feels threatened by tag at recess then either they have been raised horribly, or there is zero teacher supervision and a bunch of mini-ass holes.

Second, and this provides us with the likely correct solution to the last statement: she has witnessed enough near collisions? Are you kidding me? What the hell does that even mean? Is this woman so rediculously overprotective that the notion of two kids running into each other is this terrifying? Wait, don't answer that, I already know and the response is "she shouldn't be breeding." They're kids; they play; sometimes they get hurt. So what? It's people like this with absolutely zero sense of appropriate response/risk/fear that allows zealots to strip away our rights in the name of safety.

The sad thing is that it was likely the best decision for the school. If crazy woman's terrified son had ended up with a broken arm/sprained ankle/bruised ego then she would go and sue the district for tens or hundereds of thousands, forcing the schools to decide between heat and books. Also I feel sorry for the boy. His mother probably also keeps the home antiseptically clean, which will induce him to have severe allergies and asthma in the future if not already.

Final note to parents out there: overprotection of your children is counterproductive. It is the freedom to make mistakes, including those which can lead to injury/sickness/embarassment that help us to grow and learn. A 13 year old who learned by five that cuts, scrapes, and bruises hurt is less likely to inflict such injuries on others (and by 13 those injuries could be far more severe). The more insulated the less empathy and the less humane the person.

Foley

I think that Dan Savage (of Savage Love, not to be confused w/ Michael Savage) has the best commentary on the Foley scandal, so I won't say much.

It isn't that he (Foley) is gay, or that he is a pedophile, or that he did anything illegal. It is simply that, because he is a Republican, everything is getting downplayed. Clinton got a consentual hummer from a leagal (of age) woman. It was stupid, immoral, deceitful, whatever other things you want to call it. It stalled congress, days of testimony, senators and representatives stood on their soapboxes to decry the moral depravity of the President. There was an impeachment. With Foley we get told they were inappropriate e-mails and let's move on. I got no love for many Republicans' draconian notions of sex, but I can deal with it if they have the character to be honest and consistent. They have not. The hypocrytical behavior that they exhibit is beyond immoral. This is why they have to go. It isn't that there are no good Republicans, it's just that they are not running the show in DC. Party does not come before country, state or district. Ever.

School Violence II

The school violence all over the news is being brought back to guns (more slowly, probably because we have a "kill 'em all" cowboy gun slinger as president...but he is sucha a good Christian). Guns are an issue in this country thanks to that pesky second ammendment, but what is the solution?

I've never been a big fan of guns, not real ones anyway. I do see the appeal, though. I also don't have any issue with hunting. If I lived in a more rural area I would likely own a couple guns and shoot things for food. Beyond hunting rifles and shotguns, however, most firearms are designed for killing other people. That is also how they are used. I have no problem with an outright ban on every firearm except for a handful that could be protected as hunting or historic weapons. Firing ranges, police and a few others could still get licences for handguns, with special id tags to keep them from working for other than their designated purpose (this is not hard). However, in an odd twist, I do not think that there should be nearly the regulation of hunting firearms that there is now.

Unlike driving, which is a privilege, owing a firearm is a Constitutionally granted right. Now I do think that, unlike the Geneva convention, the second ammendment really is quaint. A free standing militia is not necessary for the security of this country, actually it seems the opposite is true, as it was a militia man who gave us the Oklahoma City bombing. Militias were meant as a guard against government run amok (McVeigh felt ours had and needed to be forcibly stopped), but even the Michigan milita would stand little chance against the US army and state troopers and local police. But in the absense of the repeal of the second ammendment, there should not be as much regulation on firearms sales. No felons, sure, but nothing beyond a quick background check. No registering serial numbers, no implanting chips, no tracking gun purches/purchacers.

Of course I also think that gun crimes should be severly punished while drug crimes should not. Gun criminals have abused their Constitutional right. They are un-American. Now what was I saying about forgiveness?

School Violence I

School violence has decreased dramatically over the past 20-30 yrs. It's true, I'm not going to get the links, though you should feel free. Some of that is related to metal detectors and drug sniffing dogs and strict policies regarding weapons and guests/visitors. Some of it is PC thuggery. Some of it is a more accepting society and some of it is detachment. There are probably other reasons, and those reasons can be discussed ad nauseam, so I won't; I'll just say that schools are "safer" than they were in the 80's, despite perception.

People feel that they are more dangerous. Steven Colbert tells us that this means they are more dangerous. It's not true, of course, but it is funny. The main reason people feel this way is likely the intense media and internet coverage. In 1986 if some 14 yr old shot a 15 yr old over drugs in a central Phily school, chances are good that no one outside of the metro area would have even heard about it. Not true today. While that incident would get less coverage than the Amish schoolhouse or other sleepy community shootings, for reasons ranging from racism to indifference, to expectations, it would still be on CNN and on internet news sites within the hour. It plays into this notion that school violence is getting out of hand. It would run. People would think schools are becomming more violent. Further news stories that seem to verify this imaginary trend would be over-reported. The same thing happened after Columbine for several years and then died off. It will die off again, but not for a while, and people's attitude will linger much longer.

Random acts of violence will always occur. It is impossible to provide 100% security. As the total amount of crime goes down, the coverage of the remaining crimes will increase (news needs to fill the void, and happy news doesn't keep viewers tuned in). Detailed coverage of a single crime is at least as effective as superficial coverage of many crimes in inciting fear. (If you know about the warnings and motivations you are more likely to see danger around you, whereas if you just hear about a bunch of killings, you are more inclined to think that it can't happen to you.) Fear only makes life more painful and difficult. We should see hope. We should forgive.

Forgiveness is a strange notion to most Americans, despite our purported religious zeal. It has been mentioned several times in the Amish story, and every time it is discussed the surprise is tangible. Why? It should not be. We have become so accustomed to revenge and punishment that we see the lack of those ideas as strange. Politicians who proclaim their Christian values so often call for murder and death that true Christian ideals seem foreign to us. Sure a Buddhist would forgive, but a Christian. That is not their way (at least not in this country). That is a disgusting thought, but it is true. It is borne out every day when king W talks. He is angry, vengeful and hate filled. His supposed Christianity is well known. Forgiveness must be un-Christian. I wonder about my depression.

Big Brother is Watching You

United States Dept of the Interior report states employees spend thousands of hours a week at various recreational sites. Now I think that porn and gambling are anathema in the workplace, but for reasons of viruses, worms, bandwidth hogging and sexual harassment, but only 4700 of the million plus suspect log entries were for those purposes. The thousands of hours/week and million plus logs also covered 7700 employees. This likely constitutes less time than is spent in the lavatories and is hardly a danger to "productivity."

It just sounds bad. That's it, though. It is measureable, people can see facts, and no one thinks spending time gambling at work is really ethical...at least in principle. The real fact is that productivity and time wasting are often very difficult to measure. If you have a union or government job, then that job often has a very detailed description, and many times you are not even allowed to do "work" that is not part of that description. This means that if an efficient employee finishes all of their work for the day by 10:00 a.m. then they cannot do any more work that day. They also can't go home. This is true to varying degrees in varying jobs. There are limits to what can be accomplished in a day, both for time constraints and for "availibility" reasons. We tend to frown more upon people who leave work early, even though those people may be going to accomplish something meaningful elsewhere, than we do upon those who "burn the candle at both ends" even if they really are not actually doing more work.

I am really back and forth on whether companies should monitor thier employees' internet usage. I don't like the idea for the reasons above, but it really can be a time sink. Of course multi-tasking means that it would be difficult to prove in either case. Personal freedoms may be one reason that I am interested in academics. It is not that they don't demand productivity/results, because they do, but they don't so much look over your shoulder 24-7...well at least not after you get tenure.

Google Bomb

This is selfish...and fun:

Jacob Ketter
Jacob Ketter
Jacob Ketter

US Science Education

Apparently science education in the U.S. lags behind other nations. Gee. I wonder why. Most likely because we have a very anti science group of folks ruling the halls of power in D.C. Not that I'm bitter...

Really, though, the article is not good. First off is for the obvious: we are not doing science education very well here, okay, but there are no solutions presented.

The article itself, however, is problematic. It starts with the comment that "faults science curricula for assuming children are simplistic thinkers." While this is true, to a certain extent, the statement should really be turned around. Science curricula actually assume that the teachers are not sufficiently well educated in sciences to teach it well. This sounds somewhat nasty, but keep in mind that in many cases the first science education a child receives is from a teacher whose major was education (possibly with an emphasis) and who is qualified to teach several different subjects. There is less specializaiton in elementary and middle school, and by the time students reach high school they already have been taught to have science presented in a specific way. There are educators who are working to change this, but it is not so simple a process as just changing the science curricula. Guidelines provided by science groups like NAS (national acadamy of sciences) are content (e.g. a student should know the parts and functions of a cell) not methods and many different curricula could get the info across.

Nevermind that, though, because it isn't new, and scientists, in particular, are aware of it, if only through the poor understanding presented by friends, family, politicians, press, etc. The problem with the article is related to the prase "simplistic thinkers" opens the door for all of the psuedo science crackpots to push (including the Creationist/ID wackjobs). Science can become very complicated, very quickly, and psuedo-science advocates take advantage of that. The vast amount of accumulated scientific knowledge becomes a double edged sword because no one person can be sufficiently advanced to be an expert in every one of the things that are covered in science from K-12. Because of that the psuedo-sci supporters can often win "debates," even if they out and out lie.

Since it is a popular front, take, for example, evolution. Evolution is taught in biology, but the evidence for evolution comes from genetics, geology, species diversity, human history, the fossil record, anatomy, and biochemistry, basically many fields covering all of the physical sciences. Most biology teachers understand very basic notions related to some of the genetics, some of the fossil record, some of the diversity, the radio dating aspects of geology and anatomical aspects like vestigal appendiges (note that most bio majors will not have a significantly more advanced understanding). An anti-evolution puppet would not trash all of the science, but would pick one or two fairly specific aspects to take apart, typically ones that are not directly related to biology. A sufficiently knowledgeable scientist would decimate such attacks, but few and far between is the elementary/middle/high school teacher that could do so.

Science education is lacking in the U.S., to be sure, but the directions offered to "fix" science education are vague, misleading, and open to attack from those who seek to make science what they want it to be rather than what it is. The key to improving science education is not to focus on what science has discovered, but rather what science is, and using discoveries, theories, and changes in perception through history as examples.

Liquid Bomb Issues

The FAA is relaxing the rediculously asinine standards on bringing liquids and gels onto airplanes...finally. For those of you who haven't paid attention, the rule was no liquids or gels could be taken through security, nor could those purchased after going through security be brought onto planes. This was stupid on so many levels that I can't possibly address them all. I'll try though...

First off, the after security thing (which is what is being relaxed). Is the FAA suggesting that you can purchase explosive liquids in airports after passing through security?!? Why the hell isn't that a security issue?!? I was very worried (one might say "terrified") on my last flight because there is a Ben & Jerrys' in Midway and I saw people purchase ice cream and I knew they were going to be getting on airplanes, and I didn't know if the airport employees realized that ice cream can be easily converted to a liquid by holding it for an extended period of time. The horror of melted ice cream that could easily conceal high levels of triglyserides that could, conceivably, cause an explosion of the waistline of the consummer, is not one that leaves after a night or two of restless slumber. (Of course the real problem is the ubiquitous airport Starbucks *shudder*.)

Second, and probably the bigger problem: the "advanced plot" that the purported terrorists were going to use would not have worked. There are lots of available explainations (like this one) but there are two key issues that, as a chemist, I feel compelled to share. One is that highly explosive compounds can be solids, or liquids, or gasses. Making you trash that water bottle, leave the shampoo, or drain your coffee cup is no more reasonable (from a safety standpoint) than making you hand over your pants, or trash your cell phone. At least pantsless, cellphoneless people on airplanes would cause amusing ackward conversation..."so, um, why do they call it a 'thong' anyway? I mean, nice ass. No, wait, um, I mean, oh, gosh it's breezy..." The other issue is that precursors to explosives are not explosives. Trying to create an explosive on an aircraft, is not just implausable, it is virtually impossible. Not that it wouldn't be dangerous, but it would be on par with someone setting fire to a sky mall catalogue (matches are allowed). The building I work in had a acetone-piranha explosion, which is basically what these wannabe suicide bombers would have (at best) created...it didn't even destroy the fume hood it was in, and it was likely quite a bit bigger than anything these terrorists could have caused.

A final point is that terrorists goal is not to kill us all and destroy our country; they cannot, not even close. Their goal is to scare us so much that we change our way of life. They are succeeding. Every time the FAA or some other government agency enacts some rediculous rule to counter an overblown or imaginary threat, the terrorists win. Every time some politician makes noise about terrorism, telling us how dangerous they are, terrifying us, the terrorists win. Every time they try and take away our rights to preserve our "security," the terrorists win. Every time we let them without speaking out or fighting back, the terrorists win.

I want my coffee back. It's cheaper and tastier. Damnit.

"Next Blog"

I like the "next blog" feature at the top of this and most other blogspot blogs, I've only found a handful of ones that I would continue to visit, but I suppose this one would be no exception to most people. Lots of people post photos, some of them good, many slices of life, occasionally fun to read. For most people this is an online diary. Others can read it, but that doesn't really seem to be the point. There are also a fair amount of venting, bitching sites. In one in particular (which I won't link to, because I would feel, I don't know, mean) the author repeatedly mentioned his/her gluten allergy (probably coeliac disease), and I couldn't help but have no sympathy, I'm not sure why because it seems it would be tough, but I just kept thinking how this person would have died as a baby a couple centuries back.

Occasionally I come across a good WTF site or post or thing. That happened today too. The blog site is about a county beauty pagent in MO (Missouri, or Misery, or Mizura...). Mostly no big deal, but there is the little sub-title on the banner which concludes, "...this blog will be a forum for women to be empowered, promoted and respected." I know that beauty pagent people love to spout this crap off about how pagents are about female empowerment. It is total horseshit, but it makes them feel better about themselves. It is especially true of the kiddie ones which are beyond creepy. Oh, well, enough of that.

For some pretty things to look at go here (pics, mostly landscape).

Why..

Why the hell is this CNN.com frontpage news? Someone please explain.

Backlog

I have one. Written and started posts that aren't posted yet. They'll come up eventually...not that many people read this regularly enough to really notice. There are several things I would like to address today, but don't have time for. Oh, well.

...hmm, I don't have too many posts like this. Weird.

Info on some Republican Candidates

I'm not sure anyone reading this will recognize it for what it is. Nor do I care. Don't bother clicking the links if you aren't interested. (The date listed is meaningless.)

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl
--AZ-01: Rick Renzi
--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth
--CA-04: John Doolittle
--CA-11: Richard Pombo
--CA-50: Brian Bilbray
--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave
--CO-05: Doug Lamborn
--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell
--CT-04: Christopher Shays
--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan
--FL-16: Joe Negron
--FL-22: Clay Shaw
--ID-01: Bill Sali
--IL-06: Peter Roskam
--IL-10: Mark Kirk
--IL-14: Dennis Hastert
--IN-02: Chris Chocola
--IN-08: John Hostettler
--IA-01: Mike Whalen
--KS-02: Jim Ryun
--KY-03: Anne Northup
--KY-04: Geoff Davis
--MD-Sen: Michael Steele
--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht
--MN-06: Michele Bachmann
--MO-Sen: Jim Talent
--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns
--NV-03: Jon Porter
--NH-02: Charlie Bass
--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson
--NM-01: Heather Wilson
--NY-03: Peter King
--NY-20: John Sweeney
--NY-26: Tom Reynolds
--NY-29: Randy Kuhl
--NC-08: Robin Hayes
--NC-11: Charles Taylor
--OH-01: Steve Chabot
--OH-02: Jean Schmidt
--OH-15: Deborah Pryce
--OH-18: Joy Padgett
--PA-04: Melissa Hart
--PA-07: Curt Weldon
--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick
--PA-10: Don Sherwood
--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee
--TN-Sen: Bob Corker
--VA-Sen: George Allen
--VA-10: Frank Wolf
--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick
--WA-08: Dave Reichert

Punk Rockin' tha Web

This thing is way too much fun.