Nightingale

They've changed the formula in the flintstone vitamins since we were kids, and they now contain aspartame. Probably better to pick up some kid friendly vitamins at Whole Foods or Trader Joe's instead that are sweetened with plain old sugar or fruit juice. The kid in question here should probably be checked by a doctor just to make sure there's nothing going on medically (I had a kid in my karate class who was falling asleep and turned out to be diabetic!). Otherwise, a nap after school, and a light, healthy, natural snack like an apple or orange half an hour before class should do the trick. Anything much heavier than that and he'll feel sick and sleepy in class. Fruit is great energy pre-karate; the natural sugars supply energy with no crash afterwards.

There's been several posthumous lifetime achievement awards. http://www.uspa.org/USPAMembers/RecordsAwards/Awards/tabid/101/Default.aspx It sounds like Harry did an amazing thing for skydiving and would be an awesome candidate!

How long does a smallpox vaccination last? Past experience indicates that the first dose of the vaccine offers protection from smallpox for 3 to 5 years, with decreasing immunity thereafter. If a person is vaccinated again later, immunity lasts longer. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp

Yep, what you'd be spreading is cow pox, but it can still be dangerous to people around you that are immunocompromised. The CDC ran into that problem when they planned to vaccinate the first responders... these are the people who work with sick people every day! That's one of the reasons they scrapped the program. -the below is snipped from the cdc website- Is it possible for people to get smallpox from the vaccination? No. The smallpox vaccine does not contain smallpox virus and cannot spread or cause smallpox. However the vaccine does contain another virus called vaccinia, which is “live” in the vaccine. Because the virus is live, it can spread to other parts of the body or to other people from the vaccine site. This can be prevented through proper care of the vaccination site (e.g., hand washing and careful disposal of used bandages). (added Nov 13, 2002) Is it possible to get vaccinia, the virus in the vaccine, from someone who has recently been vaccinated? Yes. Vaccinia is spread by touching a vaccination site before it has healed or by touching bandages or clothing that have become contaminated with live virus from the vaccination site. Vaccinia is not spread through airborne contagion. The vaccinia virus may cause rash, fever, and head and body aches. (updated Dec 9, 2002) .... People most likely to have side effects are people who have, or even once had, skin conditions, (especially eczema or atopic dermatitis) and people with weakened immune systems, such as those who have received a transplant, are HIV positive, or are receiving treatment for cancer. Anyone who falls within these categories, or lives with someone who falls into one of these categories, should NOT get the smallpox vaccine unless they are exposed to the disease. Pregnant women should not get the vaccine because of the risk it poses to the fetus. Women who are breastfeeding should not get the vaccine. Children younger than 12 months of age should not get the vaccine. Also, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) advises against non-emergency use of smallpox vaccine in children younger than 18 years of age. In addition, the vaccine manufacturer’s package insert states that the vaccine is not recommended for use in geriatric populations in non-emergency situations. The term geriatric generally applies to those people age 65 and above. Also, people who are using steroid drops in their eyes should wait until they are no longer using the medication to get the vaccine. Also, people who have been diagnosed by a doctor as having heart disease with or without symptoms, including conditions such as previous myocardial infarction (heart attack), angina (chest pain caused by lack of blood flow to the heart), congestive heart failure, and cardiomyopathy, stroke or transient ischemic attack (a “mini-stroke” that produces stroke-like symptoms but no lasting damage), chest pain or shortness of breath with activity (such as walking up stairs), or other heart conditions being treated by a doctor should not get the vaccine at this time. (Heart disease may be a temporary exclusion and may change as more information is gathered.) In addition, individuals who have 3 or more of the following risk factors should not get the vaccine at this time: high blood pressure diagnosed by a doctor; high blood cholesterol diagnosed by a doctor; diabetes or high blood sugar diagnosed by a doctor; a first degree relative (for example, mother, father, brother or sister) with a heart condition before the age of 50; and/or, currently a cigarette smoker. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccination/faq.asp

Nope. It's a live virus vaccine, and has been known to cause complications even in healthy people, and you shed virus while you're healing, so you getting vaccinated can cause problems for people around you (babies, elderly, immunocompromised). I'm not going to risk those kinds of problems when the odds of a smallpox outbreak are so low, and when we're not even sure that the vaccine we do have would be effective on smallpox virus that has been engineered for biological warfare. If there was a possibility of exposure, I'd go get vaccinated.

If you're talking about the plague, I doubt terrorists would use that, since antibiotics usually clear it up pretty quickly. It got out of control in the middle ages because antibiotics hadn't been invented and people didn't understand about the spread of disease, so a lot of the things they were doing to prevent it were actually spreading it. Smallpox is probably a much better weapon of choice, since the point of terrorism is to, well, terrorize, and even a single case of smallpox in the USA would send the entire nation into a panic, while plague would be more of the subject of a Monty Python sketch.

Yeah, but when you've never known the difference and what you've got now seems to work just fine, is it really worth the switch to something that costs more? Edit: and do you have any clue what law school costs?? I had more disposable income when I was in school than I do now with the student loans and the mortgage.

Is there a way to get a scratch out of poly? i had a kimber eject brass straight at my face, and it hit the right lens and left a C shaped mark on the lens right in my line of sight, and it's driving me nuts! Can they do anything, or do I have to replace the lens?

That's what my eye doc said, but my insurance covers the $100 for the anti reflective coat on poly or plastic, so that's not an out-of-pocket expense for me, and I've never had lenses made out of anything but poly in my life so I don't know the difference... I'm honestly a bit afraid to order high index, because it's so much more money and I'm afraid I'll decide I can't live without it because its so much better, and I'll be stuck paying an extra $150 every year forever. I think you've convinced me to try it this time, though, and I'll keep my current pair of poly glasses for karate and the shooting range.

That is exactly why I'd consider PRK but not LASIK. That flap is scary, especially because I do karate, where getting hit in the face is a very real possibility.

High index lenses are beyond my budget, but since I tend to pick frames with fairly small lenses, I'm usually okay with polycarbonate. My uncle got LASIK, and he still needs glasses for driving at night, but other than that, he's fine without for everyday stuff, and his driving glasses are plain old plastic (cheap!). He's thrilled with the outcome, but I understand wanting to be 100% glasses free. Personally, I'd just be happy to be able to see to the point where I feel as though I could take care of myself without being dependent on glasses in an emergency.

Sure, why not?

I have one pair of glasses, no backups because they're so expensive. My prescription is so strong that they don't advise anything but polycarbonate (which I need anyway because I participate in sports and can't have anything that shatters), and of course, the insurance doesn't want to pay for polycarbonate, only plastic, so I end up coughing up a couple hundred bucks for glasses every year because my prescription won't stabilize enough to let me go two years without getting new glasses. My prescription sunglasses are three prescriptions out of date, but I wear them anyway sometimes when I'm so desperate for sunglasses that I don't care that I get a headache because the prescription is wrong. I tried the clip on sunglasses, but they scratched my glasses. =( What's funny is the insurance will pay a ton for frames, but less for lenses! How does that make any sense?! I could walk out with a pair of Prada frames and pay about $20 for them, but I'd rather get cheap frames and the right lenses so I can see! (or at least be able to divide my frame allowance so I can get glasses and sunglasses, but they won't let me do that either). I wish they'd just give me a "glasses" allowance and let me allocate it the way I need to. If something happens to my glasses, I'll just put the replacement pair on my credit card and refrain from contributing to my cousins' college funds for a couple of months until I pay off the bill, because the odds of me actually needing a back-up pair are pretty small. I don't wear contacts anymore since I've never found them to be comfortable and they're way too much hassle.

Because registration is seen as a step on the path towards confiscation. They can't take away what they don't know you have.

In order to do that they would have to know that you already own a gun. And that would require gun registration. So that's not gonna fly. Solid studies have shown the uselessness and futility of waiting periods anyway. I've posted them on here before. It's just a dumb "feel good" idea. John, read the part in bold. I said that in the states that are already registering anyway, it makes sense to remove waiting periods for second guns. They already know you have a gun. Yes, waiting periods are probably largely useless in practice. I agree with you, but they're probably constitutional. I don't like it, but I don't have a constitutional argument against it, because waiting a couple of days for a gun could probably meet strict scrutiny if the law is written carefully enough.

It's really whatever you agree with the parents that your duties will be. In many cases, the parents pick whoever they feel will best look after the child should something happen to the parents, and take steps to make that happen legally, and in other cases, it's the responsibility of the godparent to look after the child's spiritual upbringing should anything happen to the parents, while someone else would have the job of actually raising the child. I have two godkids (a brother and sister, children of one of my closest friends), and, according to their parents, it's my job to: 1. spoil them rotten on their birthdays and at christmas 2. Make sure they are raised Catholic if anything happens to their parents, since the people who will be getting custody of the children are not Catholic (neither am I, but I was raised in the church and have agreed to respect the parents wishes). I am the one who is to make sure they get to church on sundays and go through the appropriate sacraments, until they are confirmed, and after that point, their religion is their business because they are considered adults in the church.

Must be nice to be able to afford 15 pairs of back up glasses. I'm waiting for the day when my eyes are stable enough that I can get corrective eye surgery, although I'm leaning towards PRK instead of LASIK. I know I'm more likely to need reading glasses, but I'd rather need glasses for one thing than need them for everything. I don't like being dependent on wearing something on my face to do basic stuff like driving and not walking into walls. During the last major earthquake out here, my glasses fell behind the dresser, and it was one of the scariest experiences of my life. I felt so helpless, because I couldn't see, and the broom had fallen in front of my bedroom door and somehow caught the door handle, so I was trapped in my room, and I wouldn't have been nearly so panicked if I could see! Losing a contact lens in freefall was also pretty scary. If eye surgery will prevent me from going through another experience like those, I'll gladly wear reading glasses when the time comes!

So if you (private citizen) wanted to buy a gun from me (private citizen)...We should have to take it to a dealer first? Most (all?) dealers at gunshows run a NICS check already. It is private to private sales they want to require background checks. NICS covers that pretty well now. But you think I should have to run a background check on you if you wanted a gun from me? NICS removed that years ago. No, hanguns are NOT registered now except in some states. Not according to the 2nd. "Shall not be infringed". Just because you have a right to free speech in the constitution doesn't mean that a state can't put reasonable restrictions on "time, place and manner" of that speech. Can't yell Fire in a crowded theatre and all that. Constitutional rights are not absolute anytime, anywhere, whenever I want, however I want rights. No, I personally don't think a background check should be required for you to buy a gun from a private party, but I think it may be constitutional if your state wants to require that. Waiting periods have not been removed in all states, and several states that have them register handguns. 18 states have waiting periods. In the states that do register, it makes sense to remove the waiting period for a second gun purchase.

I don't see any reason why a court order stating that someone is a danger to self or others, such as the order issued in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter, should not flag a firearms purchase background check in the same way a criminal conviction would. Since the person has had his day in court at this point, they can't say they were denied their constitutional rights without due process, and the government has a strong interest in keeping guns out of the hands of people in that kind of mental state. However, for something like this to be constitutional, there must be some kind of timely process for someone to get the mark removed from their record and their rights restored should they recover, as their mental condition is through no fault of their own. Timely as in months, not years. The thing is, the people usually advocating for these conditions like background checks, waiting periods, and registration don't usually want to give anything back to the other side. I'd also like to see a national "shall issue" policy for concealed carry permits. If you're legally able to own a gun, you should be legally able to carry it. I'd like to see state restrictions that make some guns legal in some states but not in others removed. Citizens of the US should be able to buy a gun in any state, not just the one they live in.

There you go...Email & Messaging BB plan, unlimited $149.99. Me, I have a lesser minute issue, but have all the data covered...lovin' the Storm... I'm paying a little less than that, so it's good, but I'll look into the unlimited plan. It might be worth it when my caseload increases in January. =) My work reimburses me for most of the cell phone bill anyway, but not until the expense checks come out at the end of the month, which is usually just fine, but having to pay the bill twice, right before the holidays had me pretty pissed off.

I don't have a problem with requiring all transfers to go through a licensed dealer. I also don't have a problem with a basic background check for criminal convictions and restraining orders, since with modern technology, such checks can be done pretty much instantly, so there is no reason not to make sure that the new owner of the gun is legally able to own a firearm. There's no reason this would shut down gun shows. They could simply have a licensed dealer on the premises and a computer with internet access. It seems like what really interferes with gun shows is the "cooling off" period. When a dealer travels to a gun show, unless he has made arrangements for a local dealer to hold his inventory until it can be released to the purchasers, he's going to have trouble selling the guns unless he's going to hang out in town for the duration of the waiting period. I think a waiting period is not unreasonable, provided it is only applied to people who own no handguns (the background check will reveal handguns registered to a person...long guns are not registered, so there is no way to verify ownership quickly), and the waiting period should be waived if the purchaser is the subject of a protective order or appears with a letter from a judge or law enforcement department stating that the waiting period should be waived because the person may be in danger. Having a waiting period for people who already own a gun is an unreasonable restriction on a constitutional right, but there is probably a decent constitutional argument that states and local governments have a compelling interest in preventing crimes of passion that a waiting period for a first gun is a reasonable restriction (note: this is not my personal opinion. I don't like waiting periods, but they are probably constitutional for a first gun, IMO). The waiting period for a second gun is unreasonable, because in the majority of situations they can always go get the one they've already got, so the waiting period is just a hoop to jump through and doesn't actually increase safety. With regards to the childproof/only the legal owner can fire it technology: that's just stupid! When I go to the range with friends, I frequently use their guns and they use mine. I'd never buy a handgun without firing the same model. When I'm thinking of buying a new gun, I find a friend with the same model I'm looking at and ask them to go with me to the range so I can try theirs, because just because a gun looks like the right one doesn't mean it's going to fit your hand properly or feel right. If you want to keep guns away from kids, buy a gun safe or buy a gun lock, and use it, and educate the kids.

I've got a blackberry, so it's a voice and data plan.

My automatic payment screwed up and paid my cell phone bill twice, and since I use my cell phone for work, it's a pretty big cell phone bill, so when that gets paid twice, ouch! The bank gave me the run-around about working with the cell company to reverse one of the payments (which hadn't actually been completely processed!), and finally after half an hour of nonsense from so-called customer service, I got so frustrated I hung up. I called Verizon, figuring they'd probably be just as bad, if not worse, and insist on sending me a paper check a month down the road, but no, I called, hit one button, got a real person on the phone, and the guy was awesome! He called the bank, verified the second payment was en route, and refunded the first payment they already received! Talk about customer service! The cash will be back in my bank account within 72 hours! Thank you, Verizon!

I make skydiver outfits for build-a-bears. The Para Pets mentioned further up are a lot easier on the wallet, though, and also totally cute!

In talking with CCW holders, I've found that many of them feel that their CCW is a responsibility to carry. If they leave their weapon at home and something happens to a loved one, and it was something they could have been in a position to stop if they had their weapon, they would feel horribly guilty about it, so they choose to carry everywhere they can so they never have to come face to face with that "what if." With regards to carrying at Disneyland, a friend's statement on the subject was "you don't only wear your seatbelt when you're most likely to get into a car accident, do you?" We used to think schools and churches were unlikely places for violent crime. There have been several CCW holders in California (that I personally know of... I imagine there have probably been more) that were in situations where someone was committing an armed robbery of a store or a bank where they were a customer, and they were carrying. They chose to keep their weapons concealed and do nothing, because the robber probably wanted money and to escape, which is exactly what happened, but nobody got hurt. I also know people whose lives have probably been saved by their CCW permits and the fact that they were carrying weapons. When you are carrying, you can always choose to keep your weapon concealed and behave as though you don't have one. You do not have to draw. But if you don't carry, you don't have the option of drawing your weapon if you need it.