Nightingale

A child is physically dependant on it's mother even after birth, but that doesn't trump the childs right to life. No, a child is physically dependent on SOMEONE after birth. That could be any other human, not necessarily it's biological mother. That's the difference.

I think the only right decision here is the one you make for yourself. You can be pro-choice and anti-abortion. Personally, I wouldn't have an abortion in any circumstance but one. If having a baby would probably kill me, I'd call an abortion self-defense. Otherwise, no. However, I also believe that the legal rights of the mother trump the legal rights of the child that is physically dependent on the mother. Therefore, while I would probably never have an abortion, I'm not going to tell someone else they can't have one. Not my body, not my decision.

Considering that the background check literally takes seconds now, I don't have a problem with it. I did have a problem with it when it used to take days to weeks, because there were situations where people could very reasonably need a gun for protection in a more immediate situation. Since that's now a non-issue, I don't see any reason why a simple check for psych issues and felonies is a problem.

A gun will go off if the trigger is depressed, whether that is intentionally or not. It's a machine and can't read minds. Part of the function of a holster is to ensure that nothing will snag the trigger and cause this unintentionally. It's logical to conclude that this kid: 1. Threw a loaded gun into his backpack. 2. The gun was not in a holster, or it was not in a secure holster and fell out. 3. The gun probably either a) didn't have an external safety switch, b) the safety was not on, or c) the safety was on but due to the motion of the backpack had become turned off. If you just drop a modern loaded gun, if it's been properly maintained, it should not go off if nothing depresses the trigger. The obvious solutions: 1. be responsible parents and don't let your kids access guns unsupervised. 2. don't put a loaded gun into a situation where it can move around unpredictably. If you need to carry a gun in a backpack/waistpack/purse, there are items made specifically for this purpose with a built in holster to secure the weapon safely.

We need to actually USE the reporting systems we have for "crazies". There were literally thousands of people who should have been on the "too crazy to buy a gun" list for Arizona that were never reported by their doctors and hospitals. There was a system. It's not perfect, but it's there, and it should be used, and it could keep a lot of guns out of the hands of people without the mental competency to handle them appropriately. Where that system breaks down is the people who never get the diagnosis of "crazy." We can't always predict who is going to go nuts. Personally, I think the best solution here is to arm as many responsible citizens as possible. The reality is that we have guns, we aren't going to be able to get rid of them since the bad guys aren't just going to hand theirs over, so we should arm the good guys to even the odds, and sometimes, even the knowledge that the good guys are armed can prevent an attack. For example, according to the data in the "Uniform Crime Reporting Program, United States, 1960-2008." (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division), Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect. And for whoever above said that CCW/CHL holders don't train for realistic situations, some of us do. The training is out there and available for those who want it (and lucky me, there are some great classes offered about half an hour away

She's Boyanka Angelova from Bulgaria. Looks like she's retired due to a back injury.

I haven't spoken to him since high school. I haven't contacted him at all, save for one email requesting that he stop contacting me, and that was six years ago. It still hasn't stopped. He's schizophrenic and is somehow convinced that I'm controlling his life through magical powers and am communicating with him psychically. So, even though I'm not actually doing anything to give him a reaction, his own brain is convincing him that I am. And so he keeps emailing me and following me when he sees me around town. I had to stop taking the train to work and taking music lessons because he'd wait for me at the train station and the music school.

I'm in a condo... he's got a nice synthetic grass potty box on the balcony, but if he doesn't want to use that, to show him it's raining out the front door, that involves his leash and my umbrella. Luckily, living in SoCal, it doesn't rain here often.

My dog believes that just because it is raining outside the back door, it doesn't always follow that it is raining outside the front door, and therefore I must put him on his leash so we can go check. Once he as verified that it is, indeed, raining outside the front door, he looks up at me as if he is certain I can make the evil sky-water stop so the dog does not have to piddle in the rain. The kitten believes that if it is food, it is automatically kitten food, including such things as dog food, christmas cookies and wasabi. The dog objects strenuously to the first two, but believes the kitten is more than welcome to the wasabi, as he learned after one attempt that it is most definitely not for dogs. The kitten also believes that the best thing one could do in the middle of the night is jump on the piano. And she is convinced that she can walk on a curtain rod the diameter of a dime simply because it is next to the top of the cat tree, no matter how many times she takes two steps and finds herself in the comfy chair five feet below. The cat believes that the kitten cycles rapidly between annoying and psychotic, and this behavior is appropriately responded to with swatting, hissing, or chasing. I am not sure that the cat is wrong. Edited to add: And all three of them are convinced that puppy or kitty snuggles are a cure for whatever is making their humans not feel well. I am certain they are on to something here, and if we could bottle and patent it, there could be endless catnip and chewie toys.

I don't care much about paint, but I do tend to open the locked threads to see what the heck someone did to piss off a mod, as I've found them to be pretty reasonable folks, overall.

I really like Brian Head, UT, though I can't speak much about the expert slopes since I don't ski those.

Personally, I like playing matchmaker. I was just a bridesmaid in the wedding of a couple I introduced. =) I've never met you in person, and I have no idea if you're an asshole or not. But, just from what you've said online, I wouldn't set you up with any of my friends, even though I've probably got a half dozen that love cats, don't want kids, and are size 8 or smaller. And yeah, the reason is your "size 8" requirement. My reasoning is this: Having your partner be a certain body size/shape seems very important to you. And while people may meet your ideal now, in ten or twenty years, maybe not, and maybe for reasons they can't control, like thyroid problems or medications. While we can control many factors that influence our appearance, we can't control them all, so having "size 8 or smaller" as a "must have" in a partner simply does not bode well for a long term relationship. I would never pair a friend up with a guy when it seems like there's a good chance he'll go "See ya!" if her appearance changes, even if he's a totally wonderful guy in every other way.

Most of you know that I hate email forwards, so you'll know how serious it is that I'm posting this. A friend sent me this last night, I checked it out personally, and I felt it was really important to let you know about this threat to privacy. There is a website, www.Spokeo.com, that is putting all kinds of personal information online for anybody to access, and I was stunned at the volume of info that was there on myself and people I know. I'm unlisted in phone books and use an alternate address for mail, and am fanatically cautious about privacy for information like that (I have a stalker), and my current home address was listed online for anyone to see. There was even more information listed for my friends and family. This is truly frightening. I strongly encourage all of you to go to this website and search for yourself by putting in your name. Then, follow the directions below to remove your information. Be sure to use an alternate email address, since you don't want your main email getting spammed, because they're probably also using their site to collect email addresses for spamming. I was able to get my name and address removed pretty easily, but I'm really hoping that my stalker didn't see it while it was up there. I really don't want to have to move again. -N- __________________________________________________________________________________ There's a website, http://www.spokeo.com/ that is collecting people's personal information from various sources like public records, phone books, and even photographs from myspace, facebook and other networking sites, as well as things like your credit score, the value of your home, photos of your home, and the names of your children and spouse. Snopes speculates that Spokeo's true goal is to collect email addresses. (Here's the snopes.com link: http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/spokeo.asp.) You'll see why below, but it's still a very good idea to go to the site and follow the directions below to remove your personal information. To remove yourself from the database, go to www.spokeo.com , and then once you find yourself, click on "see it all". Then save the link to your page by highlighting the link in the address bar at the top of the very next page, (the one where it tries to sell you more information about you. It will start with http:// or https:// ) and then right click on it, and select "copy". Then, scroll to the bottom of the page and click on "privacy", located in the small print at the very bottom center of the page. Right click in the box that says "URL:" and select "paste". Next, put in an email address in the next box. USE A JUNK EMAIL ADDRESS, DO NOT USE YOUR MAIN EMAIL, since there is no reason to provide these people with any more of your personal information, and they are probably trying to collect your email address. (You can make a new email for free at www.gmail.com if you don't already have an email you use for stuff like this). Then, fill in the "code" box with the code in the image. And last, click the "Remove Listing" button. But, you're not done yet! Now, go check the email you gave them. They will send you an email. You need to click on the link in the email to finalize the removal. And FINALLY, your listing is gone. But, there's a catch. You can only remove a few listings per email address. So if you need to remove more than two or three, once the email stops working, you have to use a different one (again, you can use gmail to make more if you need to). AND, they will only allow a certain number of removals per computer per day. So if you want to remove more than that, even if you use a bunch of different email addresses, you'll have to come back tomorrow to get rid of them all, or use a different computer.

Honestly, I don't really see anything wrong with what he did. The purpose of TSA is to make sure nothing bad gets on an airplane (while their effectiveness is debatable, this is what they're supposed to be doing). A guy standing there in his underwear (presuming tighty whities) is covered enough for modesty, but demonstrating pretty clearly that he's not hiding anything that couldn't be found without a cavity search, and even TSA hasn't implemented this. The story doesn't indicate he did anything except write something on his chest and make TSA's job easier. What he had written wasn't offensive according to the article, it was part of our Constitution. So, he made it so TSA could do a visual inspection and see he had nothing dangerous, so they didn't have to put him through a body scanner and take a naked photo of him or paw at him. I don't see why this is an issue.

Ooooohhhh. I like that. For me: Less procrastination, but I probably won't get to that until later. I just figure that if I need to make a change, there's no point in waiting until New Year's to do it, and there's no point in using New Year's as an excuse to make a change that I wouldn't otherwise, since it won't stick.

Somewhere about eight years ago, I resolved to no longer make new year's resolutions. Only one I ever kept.

John Crowell. My instructor on my first tandem. Then, after I wussed out on AFF 2 and rode the plane back down, he was my instructor on my second tandem. And then, I went out to the DZ on a weekday, and was sitting on the benches at Perris just watching the canopies and wasn't intending to jump, just trying to calm my nerves a bit. John came over to chat and reminded me that skydiving is not a spectator sport. I passed level 2 that day. The others that stand out in my mind from when I was a student are: Shelley Crowell, Raoul Gravell, and Ed Dickinson.

Yep. I'm Chief of Staff to Indiana, and Assistant Chief of Staff to Kiki (Roommate's kitten). And, the roommate insists that I'm Jojo (the dog)'s mom, as the command for him to wait in his kennel is "go to your room!" The one glaring in the photo is Indy, at the vet. The sleepy adorable one is Kiki, and the dog is rather self-explanatory.

This is going to sound crazy, but if you run a stud finder over the kitty's back/neck, you can find out if it has a microchip. If you or a neighbor has one from hanging pictures/shelves, it could save you a trip to the vet. http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-atlanta/dogs-101-can-i-find-a-microchip-on-a-dog-with-a-stud-finder-atlanta If there's no chip, make some signs and keep kitty safe and warm. And, if there's no answer to the signs, well, perhaps kitty chose you for a reason?

Hmm.... I think #2 has probably been addressed to the point of redundancy on this forum, so I'll answer #3. Francis Church said it way better than I ever could, and I don't think anyone's ever said it more perfectly, so I think I will borrow his words to answer you. Here's his response to Virginia O'Hanlon, published in the New York Sun in 1897.

I have the Blackberry Bold. I've been really happy with it! Work just gave my dad a droid. He hates it. And so do I, because he's always handing me the damn thing to figure it out for him. He doesn't have any issues with his blackberry though (he also has a BB bold for his personal phone).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39524861/ns/health-heart_health/?ns=health-heart_health Hands-only CPR saves more lives in cardiac arrests Ariz. study is largest to show that mouth-to-mouth breathing doesn't help By CARLA K. JOHNSON The Associated Press updated 10/5/2010 5:21:26 PM ET 2010-10-05T21:21:26 CHICAGO — Hands-only CPR doesn't just eliminate the "yuck factor." A new study shows it can save more lives. It's the first large American study to show more adults survived cardiac arrest when a bystander gave them continuous chest presses to simulate a heartbeat, compared to traditional CPR with mouth-to-mouth breathing. "Anyone who can put one hand on top of the other, lock their elbows and push hard and fast can do this. No risk, no fear of causing harm," said lead author Dr. Ben Bobrow of the Arizona Department of Health Services in Phoenix. "We want to take away all the reasons bystanders do nothing when they witness another person collapse." With hands-only CPR, advocates say, potential rescuers don't have to contemplate what for some could be the "yuck factor" of putting their mouth to an unconscious person's mouth and breathing for them. For others, the trimmed-down method simplifies a confusing procedure learned years ago and barely remembered — How many breaths? How many chest compressions? Are you supposed to pinch the nose? Standard CPR with mouth-to-mouth and chest compressions is still best for very small children and victims of near-drowning and drug overdose, experts say, instances where breathing problems probably led to the cardiac arrest. Rescue breathing can take too long Nonstop chest compressions work better for adult cardiac arrest because most people take too long to do mouth-to-mouth, said senior author Dr. Gordon Ewy (pronounced AY'-vee) of the University of Arizona Sarver Heart Center. After cardiac arrest, oxygenated blood can't get to the brain without help. Most rescuers take about 16 seconds to perform two CPR breaths — long enough to starve the organs of oxygen. "Your hands are their heart," Ewy said. "When you stop pressing on the chest, blood flow to the brain stops." A 2007 study of 4,068 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in Japan found similar results, but other studies have found no difference between the two CPR methods. The study, which appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, is also the first to show a statewide awareness campaign can increase bystanders' willingness to try CPR. Arizona reached 500,000 people through public service announcements, YouTube, free classes, e-mails and inserts in utility bills, all promoting hands-only CPR. Researchers looked at 4,415 adult cardiac arrests outside of hospitals in Arizona from 2005 to 2009 during the campaign. The rate of bystanders attempting any type of CPR increased from 28 percent in 2005 to 40 percent in 2009. Bystanders were more likely to use hands-only CPR over traditional CPR as time went on. And victims who got hands-only were more likely to survive: 113 of 849 victims (13 percent) who received the hands-only method survived, compared to 52 of 666 victims (about 8 percent) who received conventional CPR. Arizona man saved by technique Greg Stewart, a 54-year-old father of five, is one of the survivors thanks to hands-only CPR. His heart stopped at his Scottsdale, Ariz., home as he and his wife, Lu Ann, sat down to watch "Survivor" on television last year. She called 911. "The dispatcher told me what to do. I got him out of the chair and onto the floor and at that point his face was really, really dark," Lu Ann Stewart said. She fought down panic. With her daughter taking over the 911 call, Lu Ann began pressing her husband's chest. "I got up on my knees and just started pressing as hard as I could. By golly, his color started to lighten," she said. She kept pushing hard and fast, ignoring her tired muscles. "He was gone a long time. I kept the blood pumping." Minutes later — "it felt like hours" — paramedics arrived and took over. Today, Greg Stewart is grateful. "She's not a big lady," he said of his wife, his childhood sweetheart. "And yet she kept going and kept going." His cardiac arrest was the result of a heart attack from blocked arteries; he later had bypass surgery. The steps: — If someone collapses, doesn't respond to gentle shaking and stops normal breathing, call 911 or tell someone else to call. With the victim on his back, place the heel of one of your hands atop the other on the middle of the victim's breastbone. — Lock your elbows. With your shoulders over your hands, fall forward using your body weight. Press 100 times a minute. Think of the Bee Gees song "Stayin' Alive" for the tempo. — If an automated external defibrillator is available, switch it on and follow the instructions. — If not, continue chest compressions until paramedics arrive. New CPR guidelines in the works In 2008, the American Heart Association said hands-only CPR works just as well as standard CPR for sudden cardiac arrest in adults. Later this month, the association plans to announce new CPR guidelines and is keeping them under wraps until then. Guidelines committee chair Dr. Michael Sayre said the Arizona findings are too new to have been considered. "Certainly their findings are compelling," Sayre said. Sayre said he's impressed by the increase in bystander CPR achieved in Arizona. "The real problem we have isn't the small difference between methods of CPR," he said. "The real problem we have is people doing nothing."

Don't like it? Don't shop there.

OMG! ROFLMAO!!!!!! Setting that pic as my desktop.

No...not the child psychologist. That's Dr. Spock. Mr. Spock. The Vulcan. From Star Trek. http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm Appropriately weighty principles guide our course. First, we recognize that police power draws from the credo that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Second, while this maxim rings utilitarian and Dickensian (not to mention Vulcan 21), it is cabined by something contrarian and Texan: distrust of intrusive government and a belief that police power is justified only by urgency, not expediency. That is, there must exist a societal peril that makes collective action imperative: “The police power is founded in public necessity, and only public necessity can justify its exercise.”22 Third, whether the surrender of constitutional guarantees is necessary is a legislative call in terms of desirability but a judicial one in terms of constitutionality. The political branches decide if laws pass; courts decide if laws pass muster. The Capitol is the center of policymaking gravity, but the Constitution exerts the strongest pull, and police power must bow to constitutional commands: “as broad as [police power] may be, and as comprehensive as some legislation has sought to make it, still it is subsidiary and subordinate to the Constitution.”23 Fourth, because the Constitution claims our highest allegiance, a police-power action that burdens a guarantee like the Retroactivity Clause must make a convincing case.24 Finally, while police power naturally operates to abridge private rights, our Constitution, being inclined to freedom, requires that such encroachments be as slight as possible: “Private rights are never to be sacrificed to a greater extent than necessary.”25 21 See Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (Paramount Pictures 1982). The film references several works of classic literature, none more prominently than A Tale of Two Cities. Spock gives Admiral Kirk an antique copy as a birthday present, and the film itself is bookended with the book’s opening and closing passages. Most memorable, of course, is Spock’s famous line from his moment of sacrifice: “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh . . .” to which Kirk replies, “the needs of the few.”