Nightingale

Kona, Hawaii. James and I had a great time there, and it wasn't overly expensive. Seeing the volcanoes was awesome, and the island didn't seem nearly as crowded as Maui or Oahu.

If you're "a couple of pounds overweight," you're not fat. And I can tell by your posts that you're neither dumb nor stupid. Perhaps the person who wrote that was making a commentary about his own life. I'm not sure about that person's weight, but it's certainly dumb and stupid to write stuff like that on a stranger's car.

I don't think anyone here is promoting abortion as birth control. Logically, if people want to reduce the number of abortions, they should want to increase the number of people using contraceptives (because they're probably not going to be able to stop people from having sex...that just isn't going to work), but they seem to want to campaign to ban education about birth control AND decrease or eliminate abortion. That makes no sense. And even if they don't like oral contraceptives or IUDs, because they can prevent implantation, um...what argument have they got against condoms?

That's exactly why making a law saying that you can only have an abortion if birth control fails, or for rape or incest, is impractical. Sure, if everyone was honest, it'd work fine, but in reality, it would encourage people to lie to get an abortion.

In an ideal world, I agree with you. Choices should be made before sex. However, passing laws like that would just lead people to lie about how they got pregnant if they really wanted to abort. Personally, if I got pregnant, I wouldn't have an abortion unless my life was in danger. Period. I'm pro-choice, and that's my choice. However, I'm not going to tell another woman what her choice should be. We all have to make the choices that we can live with, and if I want to control what happens to my own body, I have to support giving others that right as well, even though they might make a different choice than I would.

the NeoCon's want nothing of the sort... Unfortunately, no one in politics apparently does. Even more unfortunately, I don't think the voters do, either. Libertarians do. www.lp.org

Sounds to me like this was prompted by a gay marriage thread in which someone commented that women shouldn't have been voting around the time the amendment was passed.

Many immigrants don't come here for health care or education. They come to make money to send home. So long as there are people willing to pay under the table for cheap labor, there will be illegal immigration.

I agree that immigrants should immigrate legally. However, I think the US also needs to do its part and make the immigration process more straightforward and streamlined. I've had friends go through the immigration process, and it's a nightmare. If the system was easier to navigate, more people would use it and immigrate legally. Right now, some face the choice of coming here illegally, or waiting sometimes five to ten years to be with their families who are here legally. Immigrants are going to come in. We've got big borders, and it's virtually impossible to secure them completely. Therefore, I think it's better to make the immigration process easier so we can document more immigrants rather than having so many people here without documentation.

Lots of states have laws on the books that restrict the freedom of citizens to do as they wish with their body, businesses, career, relationships, personal lives, and money. I think that by attempting to control behavior through legislation like that, the government is discouraging citizens from taking responsibility for their own actions, citizens can then claim that there should be a law or warning label or something removing the need to think for themselves. Hell, my curling iron has a warning "do not insert into any bodily oriface." What's pathetic is that for that warning to be there, someone probably actually did that and then sued the manufacturer. Sigh. I don't need a curling iron company to tell me where not to stick a curling iron, and I don't need the government telling me not to try to kill myself, or not to parachute off a bridge. It should be my right to make up my mind about both, and my responsibility to deal with the consequences.

Seems to me that the criminalization of drugs created a black market that causes a lot of problems, just like alcohol prohibition did (bringing about stuff like the Mafia and Al Capone for alcohol, and the drug runners and gangs for illegal drugs), and arresting drug users for non-violent offenses just makes the taxpayers pay to keep them in jail. There is no point in making something illegal when it's only harming the individual, but making drugs legal would free up so much money because we would no longer be paying to keep non-violent offenders in jail, or for their trials and probably their defenses as well. Six out of ten inmates in federal prison are there for non-violent drug offenses. Using the same argument above with regards to base jumping, there's no point in wasting time and resources prosecuting people who are only risking their own lives jumping on land that is supposed to belong to the people (private property and trespassing is another matter). The National Park Service exists to protect the environment, not to protect people who want to do (in some people's minds) stupid things. As long as the jumpers aren't harming the natural environment the park service is supposed to protect, the NPS should stay out of it. The purpose of government is not to protect citizens from their own stupidity or risky choices. It's to protect the lives, rights, and property of its citizens from the interference of others. The government is not supposed to be a parent and tell its citizens how to live their lives. The whole point of living in a free country is to have the freedom to make our own choices, and along with that comes the responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

It comes with 256 and an empty slot, so I'm going to add 1 gig in the empty space. I've got 768 in my iMac and it runs World of Warcraft with no problems. I was going to get 512 for the iBook, but priced the ram and realized that I could get 1 gig for $30 more than the 512.

I agree that with a "properly run network" you shouldn't have many virus problems. However, my school's network doesn't qualify as "properly run." It's totally unsecure and the majority of students have the same problems I've been having. I had a local computer repair guy say "Normally, I recommend PC laptops for students, but if you go to that school, I say buy a Mac." because of their virus issue. So far, I haven't found any software that I need or want that a Mac can't run, or that I can't find a similar application for Mac that does the same thing. Sure, there are some video games that won't work, but it's a small sacrifice for a system that doesn't crash and does what I want it to when I want it to without freezing, BSODing, or otherwise misbehaving. I love my Mac, and I don't think I'll ever buy another PC. Someone told me when I was thinking of buying my first Mac that "PCs have users and Macs have evangelists...and there is a very good reason for that."

It's the low end, ultra portable one. $899 (plus a free iPod). I paid over $3K for my toshiba. Also, my school has a ton of virus issues and won't let us log on through a firewall (yes, I was running 3 different anti-virus programs regularly and still got virii), so a Mac is a safer way to go in my situation (not saying it's impossible for a Mac to get a virus, just more unlikely). I could also upgrade the 30 gig to an 80 gig for $112, but I don't think I'll need that much.

I'm still pretty new at this Mac thing, but I love my iMac and am going to pick up an iBook to use for school in the next few weeks. Every time I open my Toshiba laptop (thats spent about 4 weeks in the shop in the 10 months I've had it), I think "damn...I gotta use a pc!" I'm going to go with the 12" iBook with combo drive and 1.2 G4. I don't need a super drive because the iMac has one. I like the portability of the 12" and screen real estate doesn't really concern me too much. I know that it'll handle all the stuff I need to do for school, and that it'll run World of Warcraft (with the graphics settings on low, but that's fine with me). So, my question is: It comes with a 30 gig hard drive. Is it worth the extra $67 to upgrade that to a 60 gig? I'm thinking yes, because it's kinda sad to have a computer with less hard drive space than my 40 gig iPod, but, if I'm not doing any video editing on the laptop, am I really going to use that much space?

I'm glad Amanda is still on the show, but the entire series dynamic is going to be changed because of Richard Dean Anderson leaving. He's only in two episodes in season 9. Jack's sense of humor and blow-it-up-now-study-it-later attitude was a nice counterbalance to Teal'c's deadpan and Sam's theoretical astrophysics technobabble and Daniel's need to study and observe everything to death before doing anything about it. They're bringing in new characters, but I'm worried it'll turn out like the last season of X-Files, because what really made that show was the interaction between Mulder and Scully, and when they were basically replaced with Doggett and Reyes, many people stopped watching. The episodes weren't as good (imo) because there wasn't really time for character development, and it was hard to convince the audience to care about the new characters when they liked the old ones so much. I don't want to see that happen with Stargate. Then again, introducing a new character did wonders for Star Trek: Voyager; Seven was interesting and brought some life into the show, but a new character didn't work so well on Deep Space 9...(did anyone else want to strangle Ezri?) Of course, I'm going to give Stargate season 9 a chance to see how things turn out. New characters can turn out really well or completely sink a show. It'll all depend on how well the writers and actors handle them.

In theory, I am supposed to be jumping on saturday. In reality, I will be sitting at the DZ reading Harry Potter while my boyfriend jumps. LOL!

You're right, but even that doesn't confirm Lily was muggleborn. Perhaps one or both of her parents were squibs and were proud to have magic in their family again. I think Lily probably was muggleborn, and JKR has hinted at that, but never flat out confirmed it.

JKR has never said for sure, but all implications have been towards Lily Evans Potter being muggle-born, so her sister Petunia would have a chance of being a witch, but it wouldn't be a certainty. However, even if Lily had been a half-blood or pure-blood witch, Petunia could be born with no magic, making her a squib, not a witch. I think Petunia is so down on magic because her sister and nephew have it but she doesn't, so she's jealous.

Well, if you look at my post up above, I really don't care who's sleeping with who, so long as all parties are consenting adults. I'm not going to deny any adult the right to make their own choices regarding their private lives. What other people do with regards to their relationships doesn't affect me in the slightest, so I don't feel like I have a right to pass judgment on their choices, since their choices have nothing to do with me or my life.

Personally, I don't see any reason to put an infant through a surgery that is completely unnecessary. Babies are fine the way they are born; there's no reason to "modify" any body part. If the child wants to be circumcised when he's an adult and able to decide for himself, I have no problem with it, though.

Personally, I don't think it should be illegal. However, I don't think relationships, marriage, or sex should be in any way sanctioned or controlled by the government at all, provided that all parties involved are consenting adults. Honestly, I don't think it's the government's business (or really anyone else's for that matter) who people want to have sex with or marry. Activities that don't affect anyone but the actor(s) should not be criminalized by government on the basis of encoding a particular morality into law. I think the government ought to stay out of people's private lives and repeal laws that presume that the government knows better than the individual with respect to their personal lives. Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.

salt water soaks work well to get rid of the crusties. Sea salt or magnesium salts work well, just put some in a shot glass with hot water and put the glass over the piercing. Stings like heck for a minute, but helps a lot, in my experience. Or, just make cleaning the piercing the last thing you do before you finish your shower (although most piercers say the salt soaks are good for it too...I've had 16 piercings total, and salt soaks have helped the most healing-wise, but everyone is different.). If you accidentally rotate a crusty through the hole, it tears at the inside of the piercing and that can make it take longer to heal and increase the risk of infection. As tempting as it can be, be careful not to clean it too much. Every time you rotate the ring, you irritate the inside of the piercing as it's beginning to heal, and you can prolong healing that way. A piercing is an open wound, and it's best not to handle it any more than necessary. As for making it snag proof while skydiving, try one of those tight, slick textured sports shirts from underarmour or something like that. If the shirt is snug, it will hold the piercing against your body, decreasing the chances of a snag. Band-aids can irritate the skin if you use them too often in the same place, but they do work well as a temporary fix (just don't use the fabric ones with the super-strong adhesive, because that hurts like hell if it accidentally sticks to the piercing), especially if you put them vertically, as the chest strap will be sliding up.

I don't know much about gun history, so I was wondering... Have there been advances in gun (weapon, gun lock, and safety, etc...) technology? Have there been improvements to make bullets and powder (?) more reliable? Have there been more gun safety classes taught? public education campaigns on firearm safety? other things to make the public more aware of proper gun handling? Are more people using gun locks/safeties? It seems like there could be a lot more factors involved than what was stated in the info above.

Well, I do wonder why you chose 1776, since the Constitution wasn't written until 1787 and wasn't ratified until 1789... In 1750, the literacy rate in the colonies was 75% for men and 65% for women. (library.thinkquest.org). Children at the time were mostly homeschooled, so literacy rate is probably the best way to measure education at the time. The overall literacy rate at the time of the revolution was 90%. (wikipedia)