Nightingale

Yep. I'm going to LP. Already have my ticket.

Well, it was seeing yours in person that really made me feel comfortable with my decision. Yours is really beautiful!

I did a ton of research before picking the artist. I knew I wanted celtic knotwork, so it made sense to go see Pat Fish. She's so busy that she books appointments eight weeks in advance and walk-ins are never an option. www.luckyfish.com

I may hit the wind tunnel sometime in the next three weeks, but I won't be jumping again until mid may. With finals coming up, it seems silly to start up again and do one jump and then wait five weeks to jump again.

Lower back. Figured that's probably the only place I could show easily it if I wanted, but be certain that I could hide it for work.

I've been thinking about it for years. Decided to do it about a year ago. Finally did it yesterday. Hurt like hell. Still hurts. Never going to do it again. But it was worth it!

yes.

Wel, I'm not certain about governmental structure elsewhere in the world (note to self: remedy that.), but here we have the constitution that is supposed to prevent tyranny of the majority. I think we run into problems when the majority allows people to ignore the constitution because it's convenient, and the leaders fail to recitfy the situtation because they're members of that majority.

My favorites: Guinness Red Stripe Blue Moon

Well, worst case, maybe you can write it off as a loss on your taxes.

That's what I said. I've never found a light "beer" that's worthy of being called beer.

In my experience, any beer with "light" in the name doesn't deserve to be called beer. However, since it's Heineken, I'll have to try it.

get a co-signer with good credit, if possible. Was the BK yours alone, or yours and your husband's? If yours only, either add him as a co-signer, or just put the financing in his name.

I think there's always an explanation for how we feel. That explanation is not always rational, however. It is often emotional, and not always beneficial to us in any way. Personally, I used to have an incredible phobia of dogs. Even a little chihuahua anywhere near me would have me screaming. I had no idea why I had this fear, but the feelings were very real. I did find out eventually what it was that had given me the phobia, and it wasn't the actions of the dog that caused it; I'd been too little to remember the incident, but I did remember the emotions. That fear had me walking on the other side of the street if a dog was behind a fence on one side, refusing to go over to friends' homes because they had a dog. That fear, while completely real, wasn't rational. There was no logical reason for me to believe my friend's sweet little sheltie was going to hurt me. I eventually got over the fear by being exposed to dogs repeatedly, a little bit at a time, until my rational mind was able to overrule the irrational, emotional fear. It took repeated, consistent exposure to what I was afraid of to make me realize that what I feared (in this case physical injury) was not going to happen. I think something similar will eventually happen with gay marriage. Like any irrational fear, people are seeing a threat where a threat doesn't exist, and it takes exposure to what's scaring them for them to realize that what they fear is not going to come to pass. As more and more homosexual people feel comfortable bringing their relationships out into the open, when seeing homosexual couples kissing in public isn't unusual, and as more states begin giving domestic partner/civil union options, people will begin to realize that these relationships pose no threat to their own lives and families. Society isn't going to collapse and the family structure isn't going to be destroyed. Families aren't always a mother, father, and kids. The idea of a "traditional family" really isn't all that common anymore. Families include step relatives, adoptees, fosters, half siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, domestic partners, and multiple households (and probably more that I can't think of right now). "Family" has become more of an acknowledgment of relationship and responsibility rather than a reference to a traditional structure.

From what I remember, the federal government is using the power given to them by the commerce clause to regulate the flow of money. It seems like cash flow is so related to interstate commerce that the government shouldn't have a problem regulating it. As much as I hate giving the government any power beyond what's absolutely necessary, I think the federal reserve act is constitutionally sound.

Well, I was trying to draw a comparison between my feelings about gay relationships in general and many people's reactions about gay marriage specifically. I think most of the non-religious resistance comes from a discomfort that a gay relationship is somehow different from their own, and discomfort with that difference, real or imagined.

My guess would be that you feel it's wrong because it's not something you're used to. I think that you feel in your gut that relationships like that are wrong because relationships like that are wrong for you. If I'm guessing correctly, I understand where you're coming from. Ten years ago, I was abstractly okay with the idea of gay relationship. It was something that showed up on TV once in a while and got mentioned in the newspaper. I had no first-hand knowledge of homosexuality, but I felt that people had the right to love who they loved, and that gender didn't matter. However, the first time I saw two guys kissing, it totally weirded me out. I had to take a step back emotionally and look at why it bothered me, and I came to the conclusion that it was simply that it was something I'd never seen before. I realized I was having the same emotional reaction that I had to the guys with tongue piercings and mohawk hair. It was different and, because it wasn't something I wanted to do, I didn't understand why anyone else would. Because seeing two guys kissing was something I'd never seen before, I had the typical human reaction to change and became unsettled by it. I had to step back and think about the situation rationally instead of emotionally, and I realized that just because I formed relationships with people of the opposite gender does not mean that someone else can't have just as meaningful and strong a relationship with someone of the same gender. Just because someone else's relationship is different from my relationship that doesn't make their feelings any less valid. Now, seeing people of the same sex kissing isn't unusual, and it doesn't bother me at all. It was just time and exposure that made me comfortable with it.

You're welcome. Also, keep in mind that marriage isn't just about rights, it's about responsibilities. For example: A hetero couple decides to have a child. They have some fertility difficulties and decide to use a sperm donor. The woman gets pregnant and has a child. Ten years later, she and her partner divorce. Her partner is now responsible for the child and will be providing half the child's support. Her partner would also, in a usual situation, have custody or visitation rights, regardless of genetics, even though biologically the child is not his. In most states, he wouldn't even have to formally adopt the child for the child to be considered legally his. A lesbian couple decides to have a child. They use a sperm donor, just like the couple above. The woman gets pregnant and has a child. She and her partner split up ten years later. Her partner can walk away with no legal responsibility for that child whatsoever. The woman who carried the child can deny her ex-partner the opportunity to see the child and the partner can't do anything about it, because legally, it's not her child.

Calling a gay marriage a "civil union" allows others, employers, for example, to discriminate between the two, offering benefits such as partner health insurance to married couples but not civil union couples. This is one of the big reasons that people are against having two terms for what is legally the same thing. As for the benefits, the below info should answer your question: "On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. Among the state and federal benefits given to married couples are the rights to: joint parenting; joint adoption; joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent; joint insurance policies for home, auto and health; dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support; immigration and residency for partners from other countries; inheritance automatically in the absence of a will; joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment; inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home; veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns; joint filing of customs claims when traveling; wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children; bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child; decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her; crime victims' recovery benefits; loss of consortium tort benefits; domestic violence protection orders; judicial protections and evidentiary immunity; and more...." source: religioustolerance.org And no, a will would not take care of inheritence the same way a marriage would, because married spouses inherit automatically and without most estate taxes.

I guess TV talent may spend more time in make-up because they can't get airbrushed like print models can, so any alterations to appearance that are made need to be done on the talent rather than in post. I agree with you that she's probably very pretty in person with no make-up (IMO, probably prettier...I think the make-up is distracting). It's just that without make-up and airbrushing, she'll look like a pretty, normal person rather than the perfection the magazines try to get you to believe she is.

I have a bunch of pics from my AFF8 on my website, and a lot of them just have me in the picture. If you like any of those, feel free to use them. www.nightingalesnest.net

When my uncle gave me Tori Amos tickets he couldn't use a few years back, I'd have invited someone other than the person I asked.

I used to work in the entertainment industry (television, in my case). Talent spending three hours in make-up was not unusual.

I don't think that sounds odd for a guy to say at all. There's something about the lots of make-up and perfectly styled hair that just screams high-maintenance.

Child molesters have nothing to do with adult relationships, which is the matter at hand. The issue here is consent. A child is not capable of consent. A dog is not capable of consent. An adult is. An adult is capable of making their own choices when it comes to who they will share their lives and their bed with. I don't give a damn if they're male, female, intersex, or how many are involved. As long as they're CONSENTING ADULTS, it's, quite frankly, not my business.