Nightingale

Dang... is there any way you could file in a more father-friendly venue?

http://www.transweb.org/qa/asktw/answers/answers9601/Donorsrighttodonate.html

I'd love to change my name. I hate my name, but I think the logistics would be a PITA...plus, I can't really think of anything I like, other than Nightingale, which is fine for a nickname/username, but wouldn't work too well professionally.

The laws are in place in most states to allow them to harvest organs without contacting next of kin... thing is, hospitals still won't do it.

I agree that is the ideal. Thing is... If I get the flu for a week and miss class, that'll have a devastating effect on my grades. I HAVE to stay in the top 30% of my class to maintain my scholarship.

awww.... what a cutie!

I usually have awful reactions to flu shots. Last time I got one, I could barely move my arm for weeks. I haven't gotten one since. That said, this year, I am getting a flu shot. Because I flat out can't afford to be sick and miss classes.

depending on the wording of the waiver and the circumstances, legally, he may or may not have actually waived his right to sue. A legal document doesn't always "say" what we think it says... That said, unless it was some kind of major screw up on the part of the other DZ, were I a DZO, I wouldn't let him jump at my DZ. If he was like the guy who pulled his cutaway instead of his main, and then flew his reserve straight into powerlines and then tried to sue the dz, there's no way in hell I'd allow him to jump.

wouldn't make a bit of difference. Even though hospitals technically can harvest organs without next of kin permission, in practice, they do not. " There are laws that allow for organ recovery without family consent if the potential donor has a signed donor card or permission noted on their driver’s license. In practice, however, this is not done. Donation is always discussed with the family. They need to feel comfortable with the decision to donate, so it is very important to talk to your family about your wishes regarding donation." source: Pacific Northwest Transplant Bank "In 1986 legislation was passed which required all hospitals to develop protocol to ask the next of kin for permission to procure the organs of the patient at the time of impending death. This is why it is so important to discuss donation with your family when you register as an organ donor so they will know your wishes. " -Int'l Assn for Organ Donation

I think it'd be cool to have a forum just for premier members. The search features are convenient... I'll have to see how much I use them to evaluate whether or not its worth the cash.

I hope you're talking about an advance directive or living will rather than a DNR.

find out how much it will cost you to rent only a 170 canopy for your jumps. It might be cheaper than buying one and then selling it in a few jumps. Otherwise, get a used 170 canopy that has a high resale value, like a spectre, so you won't lose much money when you outgrow it.

Donor. Don't have the sticker on my license, but don't need it. My family is so pro organ donation that there wouldn't be any question. My Aunt Karen is on the list for a heart transplant, so we all know how important it is.

didn't feel a thing here in orange county.

If your kid is screwing up, expect to be inconvenienced. If a belt or pants at the waist was part of the uniform, that's how the parent should've sent the kid to school.

getting duct tape off of clothes is damn near impossible. Once you get the silver tape part off, the adhesive stays forever. I'd be pissed if I had to buy my kid new clothes. They should've called the parent and made them bring their kid a belt.

Trials and Tribble-ations -DS9

leasing laws vary from state to state. Call an attorney in your state who specializes in landlord-tenant stuff.

they would still probaly disagree with you, because they don't believe animals should be held in captivity, so they would still dislike your treatment of your chickens.

1L here. law schools put a TON of weight on your LSAT. GPA is second. A distant third is anything else you want them to consider. Take an LSAT prep course. they're pricey, but worth it. Take the practice LSAT on the princeton review website www.princetonreview.com. it predicted my score within three points.

call PETA. They'll send you all kinds of cool info for your project. www.peta.org Vegans aren't into "rescuing eggs" they disagree with the way the chickens are treated. From Peta: Whether you’re a staunch animal rights advocate, an activist who’s just getting started, or a complete skeptic, you can use these answers to help clarify your understanding of the animal rights movement. The responses presented here are by no means the only answers to these frequently asked questions. They are simply intended to provoke you to think about common assumptions and to serve as a resource as you formulate your own opinions. “What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?” People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her). “What is the difference between ‘animal rights’ and ‘animal welfare’?” Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow those interests to be traded away as long as the human benefits are thought to justify the sacrifice, while animal rights theories say that animals, like humans, have interests that cannot be sacrificed or traded away to benefit others. However, the animal rights movement does not hold that rights are absolute—an animal’s rights, just like those of humans, must be limited and can certainly conflict. Supporters of the animal rights movement believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, while supporters of the animal welfare movement believe that animals can be used for those purposes as long as “humane” guidelines are followed. “What rights should animals have?” Animals should have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We are, therefore, obliged to take that interest into consideration and to respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her. However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals. For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and, therefore, doesn’t have the right to vote because that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child. “Where do you draw the line?” The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, “A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help .… He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is capable of feeling.” We can’t stop all suffering, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stop any. In today’s world of virtually unlimited choices, there are plenty of kind, gentle ways for us to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate ourselves that do not involve killing animals. “What about plants?” There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain because they are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains. It is theorized that animals are able to feel pain so that they can use it for self-protection purposes. For example, if you touch something hot and feel pain, you will learn from the pain that you should not touch that item in the future. Since plants cannot move from place to place and do not need to learn to avoid certain things, this sensation would be superfluous. From a physiological standpoint, plants are completely different from mammals. Unlike animals’ body parts, many perennial plants, fruits, and vegetables can be harvested over and over again without dying. If you are concerned about the impact of vegetable agriculture on the environment, you should know that a vegetarian diet is better for the environment than a meat-based one, since the vast majority of grains and legumes raised today are used as feed for cattle. Rather than eating animals, such as cows, who must consume 16 pounds of vegetation in order to convert them into 1 pound of flesh, you can save many more plants’ lives (and destroy less land) by eating vegetables directly. “It’s fine for you to believe in animal rights, but why do you try to tell other people what to do?” Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but freedom of thought is not the same thing as freedom of action. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others. You may believe that animals should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but you don’t always have the right to put your beliefs into practice. The very nature of reform movements is to tell others what to do—don’t use humans as slaves, don’t sexually harass women, etc.—and all movements initially encounter opposition from people who want to continue to take part in the criticized behavior. “Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?” An animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or a person with a developmental disability’s inability to do so. Animals are not always able to choose to change their behaviors, but adult human beings have the intelligence and ability to choose between behaviors that hurt others and behaviors that do not hurt others. When given the choice, it makes sense to choose compassion. “Where does the animal rights movement stand on abortion?” There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, the animal rights movement has no official position on abortion. “It’s almost impossible to avoid using all animal products; if you’re still causing animal suffering without realizing it, what's the point?” It is impossible to live without causing some harm. We’ve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in gnats, but that doesn’t mean that we should intentionally cause unnecessary harm. You might accidentally hit someone with your car, but that is no reason to run someone over on purpose. “What about all the customs, traditions, and jobs that depend on using animals?” The invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated restructuring and job retraining. Making changes to customs, traditions, and jobs is part of social progress—not a reason to deter it. “Don’t animal rights activists commit ‘terrorist’ acts?” The animal rights movement is nonviolent. One of the central beliefs shared by most animal rights activists is the belief that we should not harm any animal—human or otherwise. However, all large movements have factions that believe in the use of force. “How can you justify the millions of dollars of property damage caused by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?” Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are examples of movements in which people broke the law in order to answer to a higher morality. The ALF, which is simply the name adopted by people who act illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. ALF members burn empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF “raids” have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have otherwise been discovered or believed and have resulted in criminal charges’ being filed against laboratories for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Often, ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs, and some abusive laboratories have been permanently shut down as a result. “How can you justify spending your time helping animals when there are so many people who need help?” There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention, and cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected. “Most animals used for food, fur, or experiments are bred for that purpose, so what's wrong with using them?” Being bred for a certain purpose does not change an animal’s biological capacity to feel pain and fear. “If using animals is unethical, why does the Bible say that we have dominion over animals?” Dominion is not the same as tyranny. The Queen of England has “dominion” over her subjects, but that doesn’t mean that she can eat them, wear them, or experiment on them. If we have dominion over animals, surely it is to protect them, not to use them for our own ends. There is nothing in the Bible that would justify our modern-day practices, which desecrate the environment, destroy entire species of wildlife, and inflict torment and death on billions of animals every year. The Bible imparts a reverence for life, and a loving God could not help but be appalled by the way that animals are treated today. “Wasn’t Hitler in favor of animal rights?” Although the Nazis claimed to pass an anti-vivisection bill, they did not. In fact, they were required by law to perform experiments on animals before carrying them out on humans. Experiments on humans did not replace animal experiments; on the contrary, animal experiments made them possible. In The Dark Face of Science, John Vyvyan summed it up correctly, “The experiments made on prisoners were many and diverse, but they had one thing in common: All were in continuation of, or complementary to experiments on animals. In every instance, this antecedent scientific literature is mentioned in the evidence; and at Buchenwald and Auschwitz concentration camps, human and animal experiments were carried out simultaneously as parts of a single programme.” However, even if this weren’t the case, the merits of an idea cannot be determined by the character of its proponents. If Hitler believed in evolution, would that mean that we should not believe in evolution? What if Gandhi also believed in evolution? How would we reconcile the two? An idea must be judged on its own merits. For more information on this topic, we recommend the book Hitler: Neither Vegetarian nor Animal Lover by Rynn Berry, available here. “Animals in cages on factory farms or in laboratories don’t suffer that much because they’ve never known anything else, right?” Wrong! Animals on factory farms and in laboratories are prevented from acting on even the most basic instinctual behaviors, which causes tremendous suffering. Even animals who have been caged since birth feel the need to move around, groom themselves, stretch their limbs or wings, and exercise. Herd animals and flock animals become distressed when they are forced to live in isolation or when they are put in groups that are too large for them to be able to recognize other members. In addition, all confined animals suffer from intense boredom—some so severely that it can lead to self-mutilation or other self-destructive behavior. “If animal exploitation were wrong, wouldn't it be illegal?” Legality is no guarantee of morality. Who does and who doesn’t have legal rights is determined merely by the opinions of today’s legislators. The law changes as public opinion or political motivations change, but ethics are not as arbitrary. Child labor, human slavery, and the oppression of women were all legal in the U.S. at one time, but that does not mean that they were ever ethical. “Have you ever been to a slaughterhouse or vivisection laboratory?” No, but enough people have filmed and written about what goes on in these places to paint a very detailed picture. You do not need to experience the abuse of animals close up to be able to criticize it any more than you need to personally experience rape or child abuse to criticize those. No one will ever be witness to all the suffering in the world, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to stop it. “Animals are not as intelligent or as advanced as humans, so why can't we use them?” Possessing superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human, so why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans? There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as is the case when a chimpanzee is compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights? “What's wrong with factory farms or fur farms? Aren't animals worse off in the wild, where they die of starvation, disease, or predation? At least the animals on factory farms and fur farms are fed and protected.” A similar argument was used to support the claim that black people were better off as slaves on plantations than as free men and women. The same could also be said of people in prison, yet prison is considered to be one of society’s harshest punishments. Animals on factory farms suffer so much that it is inconceivable that they could be worse off in the wild. The wild isn’t “wild” to the animals who live there—it’s their home. There, they have their freedom and can engage in their natural activities. The fact that they might suffer in the wild is no reason to ensure that they suffer in captivity.

6 months to a year, depending on the organization. Hospitals, usually 6 months. Red Cross, one year.

I donate blood regularly and won't get a tatoo for that reason! Lord forgive me for being so selfless as to cheat someone my blood for personal reasons. Sorry to rant, just personal belief, and I'm not real religious by the way. Personal choice only. I have A+ blood, and half the time here in OC, when you call to get an appointment at a blood drive, they say they don't need any more A+, because its so common here, so I figured a year of not being able to donate wouldn't be a big deal.

ask your istructors. we haven't seen you fly or land, so we can't give you appropriate advice.

I used to donate blood regularly. They won't let me again for about another six months... body piercings.