Nightingale

There would be many fewer accidental injuries if parents who own guns would teach their children proper respect for firearms. I grew up in a house where the guns hung on the wall. Ammunition was in the closet and down in the basement where my father did his reloads. It never occurred to my sister or me to touch any of these things without permission. Never. And I was not a particularly obedient child. I was, however, very aware from an early age exactly what a firearm can do. Yep. When I was about four, my dad took my brother and I out to an open range. He set up a watermelon and aimed a shotgun at it. He told us "this is what a gun can do to your head." and fired at the watermelon, which exploded everywhere. My brother and I were NEVER tempted to touch a gun without permission after that kind of visual aid. My dad had guns hanging on the wall. I don't know where the ammo was, because I never was tempted to look.

Yes. I live alone in a downstairs apartment. If someone wanted to get in, it's not that hard. Four people that I know of. Probably more that I don't. Well, first off, most apartments don't allow a home security system to be installed, and installers won't do it without the landlord's permission. Unless you live in a house, security systems aren't always an option. Living in areas with low crime rates is expensive. I'm a student. I don't have a lot of extra money, and I can't afford a deposit of several thousand dollars to move to a new apartment, not to mention mover's fees and all the other crapola that goes along with moving. My shotgun was a heck of a lot cheaper. The area I live in is fairly safe; I don't have a problem walking to the store after dark, but bad things happen even in safer areas. There has been quite a few serial rapists who have come through windows in so called "safe" areas. As for pepper spray: first off, it has to be in your hand. Far too many women carry it in their purses where they have to dig for it. You walk in your front door, set your purse down, go to bed... if someone comes into your bedroom, they're now between you and your pepper spray. A weapon does you no good if you can't access it. A gun next to your bed is a lot easier to access. I guess you could keep pepper spray next to your bed, but it takes much better aim than a shotgun, and is a lot smaller, so it could be harder to find in the dark. I don't do drugs, I don't sleep with married people, and I do exercise common sense: I put locks on the doors and windows, got extensive training in hand-to-hand combat, and bought a shotgun and learned how to use it. I do. The fact that it's also a damn good weapon for home/self defense is a bonus. Also, there's no point in having a weapon for self defense if you don't go out and practice with it until you are very comfortable with it. I've taken those steps. I've also bought a shotgun to deal with people who are not deterred by those steps. What it really comes down to is that I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Far too many people are prompted to buy a gun or take martial arts lessons AFTER something happens. I had so many women that turned up in my karate class after they'd been raped or beaten by a stranger or someone they knew. At that point, karate training is empowering and can help prevent future incidents, but it won't help with the first one. The time to buy a gun and/or take self-defense classes (I'd recommend both, but that's my opinion) is BEFORE you need them. I've heard so many people say that they'd never thought they would use their martial arts; they were just training for fun, and then their skills saved their ass. I am one of those people. I wonder if things would've turned out differently for the women I trained if they'd started training earlier. It may not have helped, but it may have made all the difference. People think that things are never going to happen to them until something does happen and they find themselves unprepared. Some people are satisfied taking little steps to prepare themselves, like the ones you mentioned. Others, especially people who have been victims or worked with victims and KNOW how easily something can happen, will take more extensive steps. You have to look at your own comfort level and take appropriate steps, realizing that if something happens to you, your comfort level is probably going to change, because then you'll know firsthand how easy it is for a strong person to become a victim.

hehe... and don't set sugar on fire. then all you get is absinthe that tastes like burnt sugar.

Herbsaint and Arak Razzouk are good absinthe substitutes that are available at good liquor stores here in the US. They're both around $15 a bottle. I like Herbsaint better, but it's a matter of preference. Don't waste your money on Absente or something over around $25 a bottle, because most stuff isn't that good, and they're preying on people who think "absinthe" is going to be expensive.

It can be seized. It just usually isn't, and companies that guarantee delivery will keep sending bottles until one gets through.

You are correct. Mines don't kill people on their own. The people who planted the mines are the ones doing the killing.

Can't go wrong with Liqueurs de France. They're a British company and one of the most reliable companies out there. I've ordered some glasses from them, and I have friends who have ordered absinthe. 100% guaranteed delivery. Oh... don't order anything from the Czech republic or anything spelled "absinth." it's generally overpriced swill. Something from Switzerland or France is a good place to start. Tons of information here: www.wormwoodsociety.org

17 years martial arts experience in: parker kenpo, and have dabbled in: TKD, Judo, Aikido, Hapkido, Tang Su Do, and Kung Fu. Personally, I wouldn't touch TKD. I took TKD for a year, so I do know what I'm talking about. TKD is a good sport, but it (at least the way it's taught in most schools) isn't taught in a way that is really geared towards self defense. Those high kicks are really pretty, but if you try that in a real fight, you'll get knocked on your ass. Personally, I'm a fan of Ed Parker's kenpo. It's practical and it's saved my life. Main points of kenpo: it's staged. we practice techniques that can cause a lot of damage if you finish them, but you can stop whenever the threat is neutralized. it's practical. feet stay mainly on the ground, and you never turn your back on your opponent. no high spin kicks...kick them in the knee and get your ass out of there. It's self defense and it teaches you how to fight dirty, because if you're concerned with a fair fight you're going to get your ass kicked or worse, because your opponent isn't going to fight fair. Someone who attacks you on the street has no honor, so they're not going to pull any punches, and neither should you. If you want to try kenpo, I can ask a few friends of mine who know practically everyone in the kenpo world for a good studio near you. There are about 80 kenpo schools in texas, but, of course, not all schools are created equal, so it's good to get a recommendation from someone who knows. Try going to www.martialtalk.com for more info. MartialTalk is the dropzone.com of martial arts. Edited to add: I'd stay away from combination martial arts schools. They're too spotty. Too many of them are started by guys that have earned one or two belts in several different styles and decide to mash them all together. If there's more than one or two styles on their sign, I'd pass them by. Kenpo did start out as a combination style but was evolved by Mr. Parker into the art it is today, and it's been street tested by many people. Kenpo is street fighting that's been turned into a martial art rather than a martial art that someone's tried to adapt for the street.

The problem with that is that if a girl is too scared to come to her parents if she's pregnant, there is a huge problem there in the relationship and trust between parent and child. It's not a law problem; it's a parenting problem. I know when I was in high school if I or one of my friends got pregnant or got someone pregnant, our parents would've been the FIRST people we talked to, because they'd made it very clear to us that if something like that happened, they'd be disappointed and probably upset, but would help us work through it. Heck, I'm almost 27 now, and if I got pregnant unexpectedly, my mom would be the second person I'd tell. Build a strong relationship with your children, and you won't have to worry about whether they'll have an abortion without telling you. If a teen feels that she can't go to her parents, she will find another way to deal with her situation. Either: 1. hide the pregnancy (sometimes babies end up in dumpsters because of this) 2. run away 3. have the abortion in a different state. 4. have the abortion at an unscruplous clinic where they wouldn't ask for an ID 5. have the abortion in an unsafe manner. 6. get a fake ID (hey, they get them to buy beer and cigarettes all the time) Just because the law says that the parents have to be notified doesn't mean that the teen will cooperate.

I have a gun and I would not hesitate to use it if I felt my life was in danger. If someone is in my apartment without my permission, it is reasonable for me to believe that they are there to harm me. I've also had about 17 years of martial arts training. I wouldn't hesitate to use that either. A weapon is a weapon. And as for getting away wtih murder... The lawyers, police, and forensic scientists would have to really suck in your country to be unable to uncover the motive that you killed your wife's lover. It's a classic homicide scenario and one people don't often get away with. Several things wrong with your scenario: For example, there wouldn't be any sign of a break-in. You'd have let the guy in the door. Even if you tried to fake the break-in, unless you are very good with forensics, chances are you'll mess up somewhere. (kick in the door with your own shoe or something). People tend to meticulously plan their crimes, but don't plan the aftermath. They know how they're going to murder someone, but afterwards think up the coverup on the spur of the moment, and make mistakes. I'm glad I don't live in your country, because, to turn that scenario around, if someone came to my door pretending to be a friend and tried to hurt or kill me, I want the ability to defend myself with any means necessary.

Actually, vouchers probably wouldn't do much. Reasons: given the proposed amount, vouchers wouldn't cover the entire cost of tuition. there aren't many private schools within walking distance from very poor areas, and many poor don't have access to personal transportation. So, even if school vouchers were approved, there would still be the problem of covering the rest of the cost, and actually getting the kid to the school. If parents don't like what's being taught in schools, vote out the school board, try to make arrangements for a private school, or look into a home-school network. The government has an obligation to offer free education to every child. There is no requirement to accept the offer. And I don't have kids...yet (however, that doesn't make my opinion about the legal aspects of the case or knowledge of the way schools and the educational system are set up any more or less valid). I was speaking from the perspective of a law student and former educator who has studied private schools, the educational system, and educational theory and methodology. When I do have kids, I will want the public school to provide sex-ed, because even if I educate my child (and I will), I would want his/her peers to have at least basic knowledge. I will vote for school boards who will require sex-ed. Should the elected school board fail to provide sex-ed, I will, as a parent, make sure my kids get the education in other ways, either by educating them myself or sending them to a private school that I have researched extensively.

Turn it around and my opinion would be the same. The ruling was good. The parents elect the school board. They have their voice that way.

NO 73 - Requires teenager's parents to be notified before an abortion. reason: causes more problems than it solves, and would add more government regulation, which adds more cost. NO 74 - Requires more years of service before CA teachers get tenure. reason: wouldn't solve anything. Teachers can be removed, tenure or not, for good reasons. Most of the poor teachers I've run into are biding their time for retirement and are burned out, and this proposition doesn't do anything to solve that. Most new teachers that are bad at it end up burning out fairly quickly and are generally young enough that they go start a new career anyway. The proposition wouldn't change anything useful at all. YES 75 - Prohibits unions from political lobbying with union dues unless they get a yearly signed permission statement from the people in their union. reason: I had a union that I was forced to belong to at work give money to a candidate that I couldn't stand. I thought the guy was a moron, and was really annoyed that union dues I didn't want to pay to begin with were being used to support a candidate I would never vote for. NO 76 - Allows governor to cut school spending without going through legislature. Limits school spending based on a formula. reason: we have a legislature for a reason. let them do their job. NO 77 - Gives all redistricting power (redrawing district maps) to three retired judges on a panel. reason: I wouldn't trust a panel to draw district lines accurately representing the people. That gives a small group too much power. NO 78 - Prescription drug discount plan, involving voluntary participation by drug companies. (Sponsored by said drug companies.) reason: I don't think it's going to work. Since when do companies volunteer to give up profits? NO 79 - Prescription drug discount plan, involving the state effectively functioning as a middleman in drug purchases for Medi-Cal. reason: creates a new issue for the government to regulate. we have government regulating too many things already, and they generally screw it up. Access to prescription drugs is something the people can't afford to have the government screw up. NO 80 - Electric service provider rule changes Reason: see 79. I don't trust the government to regulate this. They've screwed up majorly before.

Good ruling. If a parent doesn't want their child hearing what a public school will teach them, they have the option of private school or homeschool. However, both of these options require parents to make an effort to make school and curriculum selections, because private and homeschools don't operate under the same restrictions that public schools do. Because of this, as a former private school teacher, I've found that the quality of private schools varies dramatically from school to school. In the county I live in, there are a surprising number of private school teachers that lack a COLLEGE degree, and even more that have a college degree but no credential. It's disturbing that there are teachers out there that are educating children with no knowledge of educational methodology. They know their subject (at least, I hope they do), but they haven't learned how to teach it. If parents choose to send their kids to a private school, they need to accept the responsibility for thoroughly investigating the school and teachers, because there is no government agency regulating most of that stuff. A school can get accreditation without having credentialed teachers or teachers with degrees (the school I was at did!) and so parents can't base their evaluation of the school off accreditation alone. I think that some parents don't want to go through the hassle of homeschool or private school, so they try to mold the public schools into teaching only what they want their child to hear. A public school can't do that, because public schools exist to educate children, not to please parents. If schools only taught a curriculum approved by the parents of every child in the school, they'd end up teaching absolutely nothing.

The associate profs that I know are mostly high school teachers with masters/phd and teach college classes in the late afternoon/evening. The associate profs here at law school are all full time lawyers who teach a class or two in the evenings.

More to the case than the first article implies. The other articles linked on the page give a lot more detail. They're not even sure if she was the first one to hit the kids, or if she ran over them after they'd been hit by a van. The sheriff said that if she hadn't left the scene, she probably wouldn't have been charged at all. The articles imply that assistance arrived rather quickly, and it probably would have made no difference in the condition of the children if she had stayed on the scene. She wasn't driving recklessly. It was a freak accident, and she probably panicked. None of us know how we're going to react in an emergency. Some people can ignore emotion and deal with a situation and freak out later, while others freak out immediately and do stupid things without really thinking. She turned herself in a few days later. The police didn't find her, she came forward voluntarily. I think the judge recognized that this was a tragic accident and that her only crime was panicking and running away.

Asians have to adapt more, and they do fine. Generally, there isn't as much of a difference in socioeconomic status between asians and whites as there is between whites and blacks.

Well, in that case it would be "walk to the back of the plane and take one more step."

No, what he's saying is that whites generally don't have to adapt as much. However, a black person and a white person from the same background and socioeconomic status would have the same adaptation issues. It's much more a socioeconomic issue than a race/culture/color issue. However, in large cities, many poorer people are minorities. I think that's what the article was trying to get at. The population of the school will be predominantly black because the area surrounding the school and the population of the feeder school is predominantly black.

Best advice I ever got about exits: "Walk to the end of the plane, turn right." The rest is just details.

ugh... I'd have chopped that. Thinking back to AFF 1: Check for: Shape No Spin Float If it isn't square, I don't want to try landing it unless I have no other choice.

When mine expires in a year and a half, I'm going to see if I can somehow make it work in a teddy bear rig.

I was comparing full time skydiving instructors with full time college professors. We've got three of them in my family at different stages in their careers (assistant prof, tenured, and the third's been promoted to dean) and each one of them makes more than the average skydiving instructor at Perris, where they're pretty busy year-round. Associate professors usually teach only one or two college or grad school classes and have a day job, at least all the ones I know do, but 40 or so is a rather small sample size. As a full-time elementary school teacher, I was averaging about $7000 per year less than a friend of mine who was an instructor at Perris.

How would you vote if you thought Badnarik actually had a chance?

Hypoxia causes color blindness. (j/k)