I think you brought in issue when you said biracial.
Posted By: Excuse me... on 2008-01-01
In Reply to: thank you - marilyn
NM
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
If SHE (the teacher) brought it up then it is very, very wrong. If a child brought it up
it is still wrong for her to answer with the truth -- but lying wouldn't really be acceptable either. In the case of the child asking her she should tell the child to ask their parents.
I would assume the scenario was something like one child telling another child that there was no Santa and that child then asking the teacher. Not wanting to lie about it the teacher told the truth. Anyone teaching children that age, at this time of year, should have a prepared statement for that type of situation. "You need to ask your Mommy or Daddy that question."
I also wondered why she mentioned biracial
it sounds racist to me to tell you the truth. Instead of saying children, why separate them? Oh by the way, I don't live in Chicago, live in the south, have biracial child, grown now and she told me NEVER had a problem in school, if anything she always told me had the best of both worlds! She has a wide mixture of all races in her friends from Caucasian to Asian. I as well as she take people for how they act, not a certain color.
I am in a biracial marriage, not thick skinned, live in the deep south, have
a mixed daughter who is 32 years old and she told me going to school she had the best of both worlds. Live in a very nice mixed neighborhood, just don’t know where this person lives who has to be thick skinned. Has never happened to me.
how does it get like this? I mean, what brought you two together
nm
I was brought up with the saying that
if you rent you might as well be throwing money out the window. If at all possible, buy. (That is what I did when I was divorced.) Just make sure that the house is properly inspected and any problems found are fixed, per your contract BEFORE you buy it, per the seller's expense. That way, at least you start out with everything in good condition. Check roof, plumbing, electrical wiring, etc.
Sure wish I'd brought a newspaper! nm
nm
You brought it up, ya goof!
The truth is painful sometimes.
I do understand but my cat has brought up
xx
I was brought to tears
by his singing but especially by his story.
That child would have been brought up with nannies whether she was
alive or not. Given Anna Nicole's usual state of mind, she was not fit to take care of her little girl by herself and her overuse of drugs I am sure has somehow played into her death. God may have given that child a blessing by giving her the chance to be raised in a proper environment not have to deal with a mother influenced by drugs. Everything happens for a reason.
What in the world brought that about, your post
talking about black culture? I do not consider her a role model any more than I consider Britany, Lindsay, Paris, Nichole- they are entertainers period. A role model is someone you should look up to and being an entertainer, for the most part, is not someone I would protray as one. I think Beyonce is pretty, sorta half way talented but the others listed above, their talents seem to be in how much media they can gather. None of these posts have been racially motivated, I do not believe. We are talking talent (Jennifer Hudson) versus non....
Oooh, I am SO glad someone brought this up. I was sm
watching this for the first time in years last Friday. I had a break and there was nothing on t.v. The last time I saw it, Nick and Sharon were married. I think I saw it around the time Cassie died??
Anyways, is Nick married to Phyllis now?
When he woke up Fri. Sharon had to break some terrible news to him - what was the news? I missed it! Thanks......
It brought tears to my eyes as well. You have
reason to be proud!!
Ah, you just brought back memories...sm
I am mid-40s. My dad also taught me home and car repair--usually against my will, but grateful for it now. Whenever I bought a car, he made me change a tire and the oil in front of him. Loved shop class in school. Mmm, power tools! I still do a lot of maintaince and repairs, but I actually enjoy doing that stuff now! As for sewing, I was born into a family of handicrafters, and since I was a kid have enjoyed sewing non-clothing things and especially yarn projects, and can do most sewing repairs. Just not very good at sewing my own clothes from patterns because I poke myself with the pins too much. Such a klutz.
So you protest about politics being brought
proceed to participate in the very behavior you are objecting so stridently to. You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to share your opinion. I am not saying that you aren't. I just find it rather interesting that you choose to actively participate in the very behavior you're protesting so loudly against.
I really don't care to argue with you, just as I don't really care for the politics board. As far as tomorrow, for my kids it is historic event. Only one of them was old enough to remember Bush being sworn in the second time, and he was still to young for it to hold a great deal of significance. I would like to foster in my children a respect for the process of our government and why our founding fathers designed it the way they did. This is part of that process. It is not about race for my younger children, although my 8-yo still doesn't understand why a black person, or anyone else not Caucasian for that matter, had never been president. My 6-yo thought nothing of the fact that a white woman or a black woman or a black man or a Hispanic man could run for president. In fact, she was a Hillary supporter and then a McKinney supporter because, "boys are yucky."
For some people, tomorrow is a catharsis on many levels, for the past 8 years to the past 200+. If you can't see and appreciate the significance of the event, then I feel very sorry for you.
That was awesome sodiepop! Last one brought tears
:)
My physician never brought up about hysterectomy, I told him
I wanted to see about this but this situation different. I had ongoing bleding that could not be controlled and then another person in medical field told me how their friend almost hemorrhaged and not being able to stop the bleeding in the nighttime. I immediately called my physician and asked for a hysterectomy. So glad I did. This was in 1986 and loads of typing then on AIDS patients and how blood could be responsible. I did not want a transfusion at that particular time. My view only. No problem with the surgery at all. Now there are other means of controlling but past childbearing, saw no reason to just have the periods.
DH brought home a pink Bobo and
a blue Bobo and presented them to the Siberians. Sasha took hers with glee and checked out the squeeker and crackly part. She then proceeded to show us the poor stitching workmanship as she eviscerated the poor pink doggy all over my office. Meanwhile CJ didn't know what to do with blue Bobo, so Sasha snatched it and ran off.
No more Bobos for the Siberians.
Down here, everybody kisses everybody on the cheek. We're brought up to do it!
x
Your post brought tears to my eyes - (sm)
I was one of the ones praying for your kitty and told you that you would know when the time was right, and you did. I lost mine in Feb and I am still looking for her, sometimes I think I even see her. Don't even worry about picking up her stuff. You'll know when the time is right for that too. I still cry at the grocery store when I pass the cat food aisle or the evaporated milk which was her "special" treat. I feel sure she is sunning herself up in Heaven right now and she is at peace with no pain, just waiting for Mom to get there someday. I think time passes quickly up there too, so to her it will seem soon when you arrive. Bless you.
So funny! It brought back memories... (sm)
Many years ago when I worked in an entirely different environment, there was a version of this making the rounds that had several followup messages between the wife and tech support. I wish I could find it in my stash of old paperwork because it's hilarious!
That letter brought tears to my eyes
and I miss her every day. I could've written your letter, especially the part about ditching her and going with friends. I could sure kick myself now for not spending more time with her. She was a beautiful lady and I miss her, especially at the holidays.
At Christmas 1993, my husband said Let's go see your folks. I said it's such a long trip, etc etc. Next year!
Well, 10 days later, mom was gone from pneumonia. Just like that she was gone and I was left with a big gaping hole in my heart and plenty of I wish and Why didn't I?
God Bless all of us orphans on the holidays.
I
you just brought back a really funny memory
When my daughter was young (way, way preteen), probably the age of your daughter, she was in dance and they put on performances where they had to wear makeup and really a lot to be seen by the audience.
Well, we took her out to lunch after one particular performance without wiping her face (I mean, it was a real production to get this stuff off -- especially the lipstick because they used this kind that doesn't come off easily).
I thought the waitress was going to flip. She gave us the coldest reception and was extremely rude. At first I did't get it, but then I looked at my daughter in her jeans and T-shirt and face all made up --- I explained to the waitress and she immediately changed her demeanor.
I guess I was dumb for not removing the makeup first and I can't remember the exact circumstances, but it seems like we were in a rush or had no choice or something... anyhow, hadn't thought about that for a while...
oh and my bottom lash isn't bald but if I don't wear any makeup at all, I at least put a little liner underneath, so yeah, I think it's okay (but I don't know what you look like lol). I'd love to have the permanent tattoo done, but the little dancer is in college now, so mom's beauty will just have to wait!!
my boy informs me a kid brought a bullet to school
same thing --- school did nothing, no note sent home, no parents contacted, no suspension. it only makes me think if a child has access to a bullet, then there's access to a gun, right? he's only eight years old!! is this really what the world has come to?
News says was young child brought TO Houston
nm
They do multiply don't they?! Brought back memories when my oldest brother
bought 2 white mice at the pet shop and the guy told him they were both males...about 2-3 weeks later we had a full liter of white mice. Mom made him take the whole cage with mice back to the pet shop (I wonder why? LOL).
mine brought me a very alive green garden snake
and deposited it at my feet in the kitchen once.
My now deceased husband brought his friend home, now my hubby
Was it love at first sight? Not for me but years later after the death of the previous one, my now husband (he never married, no kids) told me he had loved me from the very first day he saw me. I did not even know he saw me. We are talking 30 more years and the weight, well I will just leave at the 30+ years.
This post made me laugh and then brought tears to my eyes...good for you!!!
I think that is great you went to the school. I'm guessing he will turn out just fine if he's got a mom like you! *Hugs*
Oh what memories you just brought back - Cortland, Syracuse. I attended college sm
at Syracuse years ago...met a man from the south, got married, and have lived down here ever since. I grew up in Rome, NY, if you are familiar...Am planning a trip up there with the entire family who, ironically, has never been up there before. We are going to probably stay in Syracuse and then drive to VT where I have family also. I can't wait for my husband and kids to see the Adirondacks in person and show them the house I grew up in.
I think we are going to wait until spring because of all the snow up there..stay safe, stay warm and cuddly, and know that I envy you. I haven't seen snow in over 10 years!!
I don't see what one issue has to do with the other.
I don't like the fact that he won, but he's a free to gamble, as are we all.
Probably because it's really a non-issue.
(She was great on SNL a couple weeks, ago, too! Her 'double-takes' etc. were cracking me up.)
My dog and my issue sm
I must have a lot of this chemical or something.
If I am unwittingly *glutened* I get the toots and they are...highly unpleasant, shall we say. Now, I understand that dogs generally enjoy this, but my poor dog does not. She hears the noise, whines and RUNS as fast as she can to other room. Not too long ago, she was being a terrible pest and I needed to get up to work. I made the sound with my mouth. She tucked her ears and tail, and made B-line for the bedroom away from where she thought was coming!
This chemical might be good for my blood pressure, but not so good for my dog.
I had that issue too for a while - sm
I "adopted" my dad's husky and he was used to being totally spoiled. I give both him and my lab dry. He was finicky for about 3 days but after seeing the lab finish up his food for 3 days he started eating no problem. He has started to get a bit picky again so we make up beef boullion for him and add some to the food and he is back to eating w/o a problem. Think he just got bored and wanted some more flavor. Boullion is cheap and easy to make.
I have had this issue for a while myself- sm
My DH will not do a vasectomy though I explained it is easier for him than I, etc. I would have possible heavier and painful periods, which I don't want. Right now they are heavy but I forget most of the time I even have it, which is bad as I have "accidents" then. But I have never really been affected from my period, no cramps or bloating, I do get headaches but that is about it. I have been leaning towards that IUD now, Mirena I think it is called. Figure I will hit menopause in 10 years so can wait it out in the meantime. He knows I am using nothing so if I get pregnant at 43 it will be a whoops, and we are having another child late in life. He would not like it but tough noogies.
Thanks but here is the issue
Living in a smaller town, although right next to a huge complex, not many here that I can locate anyway does acupuncture. The nearest one I found before was probably about 30 or 40 miles away. I can self refer as I have PPO insurance so a referral not needed for me. I just want to know how to word an I only want to use #1 as a pain clinic physician.
Well, sometimes there is a medical issue
as there is here, not just eating and eating for no reason at all. Was always trim and slim until this but thanks anyway for the curt note.
Wiretapping is a whole different issue
You have an expectation of privacy when you have a phone conversation (although cell phones have pretty much burst that bubble). The government shouldn't be able to listen in unless there is cause for them to be suspicious that you are involved in criminal activity.
The other information - SS#, birth certificate, marriage certificate - is already on file with the government. You aren't telling them anything they don't already know.
There is also the behavior issue of (sm)
submissive piddling.
You can buy something called a Belly Band for him to wear in the house. If he dribbles with it on, he gets himself wet, so this can teach him not to let that happen. I've just heard that not all pet stores call it a Belly Band or know what that is, but you can Google something like house training, canine belly band, and you can read about it and maybe order on line.
Corgis are so cute. You can post pictures here on the gab board.
I think it is more of an issue of not supporting
things/people that I find morally wrong.
Granted, the God hating was not translated from the book to the movie, but that is not the point.
The point is, that this author had the audacity to write in his books about wanting children to kill God and that is wrong to ME.
I have every right to boycott this movie for that very reason because I am not giving this man a dime of my money and support.
It's not just about whether the movie is going to wrongly influence my children, it's about standing up for what you believe from the beginning.
I'm going through a similar issue.
I've had pain in my left upper, right upper and right lower quadrant for years now. I keep going to the doctor, he keeps trying to tell me I'm constipated. I'm not. I would know if I wasn't regular. I had a hiatal hernia when he thought my upper mid abdominal pain was reflux, and I had kidney stones when he thought my previous upper left quadrant pain was constipation. Now he tells me I'm a hypochondriac because I do medical transcription. However, they found fibroids and some other abnormality on ultrasound. Still haven't gotten those results back because they want me to pay another $150 office visit just to tell me what my $800 ultrasound said. Everyone else is telling me to have a HIDA scan to see if I have gallbladder disease for the right upper quadrant. I don't know if the left upper quadrant pain is another kidney stone or renal colic. I didn't know if fibroids hurt and would cause the right lower quadrant pain. Yes, I do worry that it's cancer. So I must be just a hypochondriac. I guess what I'm saying is, your daughter knows her body better than anybody else. If she thinks something isn't "right," she needs to pursue it. I don't think it's normal to be in pain every day.
Is it a necessary medical issue or just something
x
If you would like to further educate yourself on this issue
INTERESTING ARTICLE
I realize this is very long, but as an expert in this field, I want to re-post information I sent, in September, to another blogger concerned about the "Best Friends" summit.
I want to emphasize that the following information is based on years of dedicated research, and decades of dog training experience. I do not simply pass along information I've heard or read somewhere...which is sadly what most people, on all sides of dog-related issues, do.
I recognize that some of your readers may find parts of it quite controversial. That's okay. Facts are facts, even if they conflict with some other [expert's] unresearched opinions.
As such, I've opted to leave those sections in, because they're vital in refuting unfounded notions about dogs, canine genetics, and dog behaviour, which lead to myths about canine aggression.
Any individual point of controversy should not take away from the overall message of fact and reason that does not support the view that any entire dog breed could be considered "dangerous".
Only once people stop repeating inaccurate information (no matter how good it may sound), will we ever hope to get to the heart of this issue, and start reducing the number of unprovoked dog bites.
The following was written "off the top of my head", in response to concerns about the Best Friends' agenda. It is not a composed article meant for publication. Please also keep in mind, it has a decidedly Canadian perspective, although there is ample U.S. data referenced.
This is what I wrote (with a few minor clarifications):
Dear (blogger),
As you know, I am an expert in Canadian dog bite statistics.
After years of research, there are a number of interesting facts I've uncovered (most of which are now widely published). As such, I've provided a synopsis here, for you and your readers. I realize it is very long, but it is a more concise collection of my years of research; right here, in one place.
The situation with unprovoked dog bites is not what nearly everyone believes it to be.
If I had one pet peeve, it is that most people merely repeat things they’ve heard or read. They don’t really know if what they’re saying is true or not. They merely “believe” those things to be true, and that’s enough for them, I guess.
You know what I say, “No matter how often or loudly a myth is repeated, it is still just a myth.”
Some people simply like agreeing with others. Some like to pretend they’re especially knowledgeable or have unique insight. Whatever the source for so many of these myths, years of research has proven the majority of beliefs I encounter about dogs are simply untrue.
Whenever discussing the issue of dangerous dogs, it's always important to remember a few key points about the dog bite statistics (especially as they pertain to Canada):
1. The most dangerous breeds in Canada are, in order: German Shepherd, Cocker Spaniel, Rottweiler, and Golden Retriever.
Why do I say this? Well, this is not dog "bite" data, but rather dog "attack" data based on the reporting information from the Canadian Hospital Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP).
The CHIRPP members (hospitals, and reporting physicians and nurses) have no reason to lie about the information they receive, surrounding the breed of dog that has attacked.
Why do I say "the most dangerous"? Well, because the CHIRPP data only applies to the most severe dog attacks (i.e. those injuries serious enough to require treatment in hospital). These are not little nips that can be treated with ice or even a band aid. These are severe dog bite injuries that need to be treated in hospital. The dogs that cause the most serious injuries in Canada belong to the above-mentioned breeds, more than any others.
Unlike municipal dog bite data (where any bite, no matter how inconsequential, or even against other animals, is counted), the CHIRPP data only relates to the most serious dog attacks against human victims.
2. 'Pit bulls' are rarely in the #1 spot in dog bite statistics.
Any measures to restrict or ban the #2, #5, or #37 'breed' of dog in the dog bite statistics, but not #1, is pure hypocrisy.
As faulty as the logic may be, if you're going to ban or restrict a type of dog in an attempt to reduce the number of dog bites, then it must be the ones who bite the most and/or cause the most serious injuries. Either way, that 'breed' is not 'pit bulls'.
3. There hasn't been one confirmed death of a child attributed to an unprovoked attack by a 'pit bull' in Canadian history. (There has been one unconfirmed death.)
4. The very first human fatality attributed to an unprovoked attack by a 'pit bull' in Canadian history occurred in May of 2006. Until then, every insinuation or claim about Canadians being in danger of being killed in unprovoked attacks by 'pit bulls' was totally unfounded.
(In the Ontario case in May, the dog was actually only part 'pit bull'. It was a Labrador Retriever/'pit bull' cross, and the dog's owner was the victim.) (It should be noted that there have been at least two human fatalities in Canada attributed to unprovoked attacks by Labrador Retriever crosses, yet this was the first for a 'pit bull' cross.)
5. Municipal dog bite statistics often combine reported dog bite data against both humans and other animals.
While I don’t have any problems with doing so, those citing combined statistics must be aware that the majority of the dog bite reports aren’t against people. To imply otherwise is, at best, misleading and, at worst, dishonest.
For example: Toronto has arguably the largest municipal ‘pit bull’ population in Canada. In 2004, 12 of the city’s estimated 30,000+ ‘pit bulls’ had been reported for biting. (That’s about 0.04% of the population, by the way; leaving 99.96% of Toronto’s ‘pit bulls’ completely innocent of such allegations.) However, the majority of those reported bites were against other animals. Only 2 of the 12 could even begin to be called “attacks” against humans.
So, when 2 out of at least 30,000 dogs of a loosely-defined type are involved in attacks in an entire year, is that really justification for not just trying to ban or restrict them, but for making sweeping generalizations about all the rest?
6. No matter what dog ‘breed’ tops the dog bite statistics, the vast majority of bites are still attributed to other breeds.
To better help people understand the absurdity of a breed-based approach to dog bite prevention, let’s imagine that ‘pit bulls’ are responsible for a virtually unheard of 10% of bites in some Canadian city. That still leaves 90% of biting dogs unaffected by any breed-based approach.
This is the primary reason why breed bans have been such a colossal failure wherever they’ve been tried. The majority of biting and attacking dogs are not affected, so their owners are free to continue to behave negligently.
7. All dogs can bite.
There is no such thing as a breed of dog that has never bitten, never attacked, never maimed, or never killed (a person or other animal).
8. It is the size of the victim, not the dog, which best predicts severity of injury in an attack.
While even the very smallest dog breeds have killed humans, the very largest dog breeds are rarely involved in attacks.
9. Adults are rarely seriously injured by dogs of any size, while children are the most common dog bite victims. Their attackers range from the very smallest to the very largest dog breeds.
10. The dogs actually involved in attacks are not genetically related in any meaningful way.
This goes right to the heart of common, yet completely unscientific, baseless claims about allegedly inheriting aggressive behaivours or being bred for aggression.
In short, the dogs involved in attacks are not closely genetically related to one another. This tends to refute the idea that the attack was due to some aberrant inherited gene.
Think about it. What could the Dalmatian that bit off a boy’s nose 10 years ago and the Golden Retriever that left 76 stitches in a girl’s face, just a few years ago, possibly have in common, from a genetic standpoint? Is anyone really trying to suggest they’re genetically related, and both inherited some sort of as-yet-undiscovered “attack gene”?
Even the Rottweiler that killed a child in New Brunswick and the Rottweiler that killed a child in Ontario don’t share any common ancestors in their pedigrees; making the whole notion of a shared genetic cause for attacks completely ludicrous.
Put simply, the individual dogs involved in unique attack incidents are not genetically related in any way other than that which makes them dogs.
11. Psychology defines aggression as learned behaviour.
I’ve been researching dog biting incidents since 1999. I have yet to find a dog involved in an attack that didn’t have a known history of aggressive behaviour.
Aggression has to be learned and practiced before it is perfected. I have yet to come across a case of a dog that attacked unprovoked, without ever having barked menacingly, growled, lunged, snapped, or what have you.
This completely refutes the (quite silly) urban myth that “some dogs just turn”, or that dogs can be THIS unpredictable. (i.e. friendly family pet with no history of ever having behaved aggressively one minute; then savage, unprovoked attacker the next)
As an experienced dog trainer (one who has spent many of those years SUCCESSFULLY re-training aggressive dogs), I can attest that dogs are not all that unpredictable. Sure, they might do something out of the ordinary, every now and then. However, for a dog to suddenly behave aggressively in a way that is truly threatening or injurious, it must have practiced those behaviours in the past. This is the nature of all learned behaviours. Only practice makes perfect. (I can elaborate more on that, if you wish.)
It’s as though people can’t imagine any other form of aggressive behaviour, other than biting. To help them along, I must point out that aggressive behaviours follow a fairly predictable scale of escalation. It may begin with staring or raised hackles (all merely indicating discomfort with a situation). That can lead to raised lips, growling, stiffened body posture, menacing barking, lunging, and attempted bites. Long before an unwarranted bite ever occurs, there are a litany of warning signs that the dog will eventually bite.
Even the most die-hard dog fighting breeders admit they have to start their puppies very young (often at six weeks), to turn them into superior fighters. When asked why they have to spend so much effort training their (allegedly bred-to-fight) dogs, none can provide a scientifically or practically sensible response. Most use made-up terminologies to emphasize what they believe are inherited traits, while playing down the daily training they force on the dogs. Yet it is clear that, without this ongoing encouragement, the dogs don’t become proficient fighters.
I’ve researched so many cases where the owner has allegedly claimed the attack was the first time the dog behaved aggressively, I now pay little heed to such statements. The neighbours almost always tell a very different story.
To use a more famous case as an example, little Courtney Trempe was killed by a dog the owner claimed had never behaved aggressively before. The owner went on to say he “couldn’t have known” the dog would attack, because it had never tried to bite a person. Well, it turns out the dog had not just attacked previously, but had actually killed two neighbourhood dogs in the past. That is an aggressive dog, by anyone’s standards.
But it does bring me to my next point…
12. Aggression is aggression is aggression. The idea that aggression can be species-specific is not based in any kind of scientific, statistical, or practical data. It seems to be little more than wishful thinking. Those perpetuating this notion tend not to have even attempted to validate this theory in any way.
There is a very disturbing myth being promulgated by a number of groups that should know better than to perpetuate unfounded myths. The idea that aggression towards other dogs is markedly different than aggression towards humans is scientifically and statistically baseless. (But I realize a lot of people learned this myth, and repeat it as though it is true.) I have to point out that the real-world data, in no uncertain terms, clearly refutes such theories.
Of the dogs involved in their first aggression incident towards a human, the vast majority had behaved aggressively towards other animals (usually other dogs) in the past.
Of the dogs involved in their first bites against humans, where the dog had no history of aggression towards humans, the majority had behaved aggressively towards other animals (usually other dogs) in the past.
Of the dogs whose first bite against a person resulted in that individual’s death, and where the dog had no history of aggressive behaviour towards humans, every one of the cases I’ve investigated involved dogs that had behaved aggressively towards other dogs in the past. (see the Trempe case example, above)
So, while some aggressive dogs may, for now, limit their aggressive behaviour to other animals, it in no way guarantees it will remain that way forever.
Most, if not all, the first-time human biters had only behaved aggressively towards other animals, in the past. Their owners, having believed the myth that aggression is species-specific in dogs, are always "surprised" when their dog-aggressive dogs bite someone.
Again, dog-aggression could remain contained, for a number of social and environmental reasons. Statistically, these dogs are equally as likely to bite a human, one day. Dogs with histories of aggressive behaviour (towards either humans or other animals) are almost exclusively involved in unprovoked biting incidents.
13. Nearly all unprovoked dog bites would not be prevented by dog control laws.
Since dog control laws typically only apply to the conduct of owners (and their dogs) when they’re on public property, it completely negates their ability to affect the circumstances that lead to the vast majority of unprovoked dog bites.
When it comes to total dog bite numbers, almost all take place on the owner’s property.
When it comes to reported dog bite numbers, the overwhelming majority take place on, or directly adjacent to, the owner’s property.
Supervised dogs in a public place account for less than 1% of all bites.
This makes public restraint laws especially ineptly-aimed and ineffective in reducing dog bites.
Most unprovoked biting incidents involve (typically an unsupervised) dog known to the victim. Whether or not the victim knows the dog, the bite usually takes place on the owner’s property (where the dog is either loose or tethered), or directly adjacent to the owner’s property (where the dog was either allowed to venture off the owner’s property, or “escaped”).
Very few unprovoked biting incidents involve a supervised dog. Simple supervision appears to be very effective in preventing dog bites.
When bites take place far from the owner’s property, the dogs involved were most likely loose, roaming, unsupervised dogs.
Simply put, public restraint laws don’t target the situations that actually lead to unprovoked dog bites.
14. Cities that address the real causes of unprovoked dog bites (i.e. lack of supervision & lack of socialization and training) are hugely successful in reducing the number of dog bites.
Calgary is the best example we have in Canada. They reduced dog bites by 70%, even during a period where the population doubled.
Calgary’s approach was to first enforce existing laws. They strictly enforce licensing, and boast a licensing rate of 90% (compared to most cites’ 10-20%). In this way, they have a better handle on the dog population in their community, which helps in making decisions and drawing conclusions.
They also have a zero tolerance policy for acts of aggression. (Something I’m personally totally in favour of. Dogs are not weapons, and anyone who unethically uses a dog for that purpose shouldn’t be allowed to own one.) Any report of aggressive behaviour of any kind results in a visit from animal control and a warning.
City officials are clear, in that they agree one of the biggest aspects of their success was the creation of ample off-leash areas for dogs to be exercised, socialized, and trained off-leash. With reportedly the largest number of off-leash parks in Canada, it’s no coincidence that Calgary also has the lowest dog bite rate of any major city in Canada.
Several years ago, I made this prediction, “When the studies are done, we’ll find the cities with the best access to off-leash parks are also the cities with the lowest percentage of dog bites.”
Calgary certainly suggests my prediction was correct.
Finally, Calgary increased the penalties for some transgressions. Combined with increased enforcement, the large percentage of licensed dogs, along with the higher fines, has led to Calgary’s animal control department becoming financially self-sufficient.
It’s win, win, win, in Calgary, all because they addressed the real causes for unwarranted aggression in dogs.
15. Breed-specific approaches to dog bite prevention have failed.
There isn’t one region that can claim a reduction in the number, or severity, of dog bites as a direct result of banning a breed of dog.
In Winnipeg, officials promoting the city’s long-time ban on ‘pit bulls’ often misleads the public by stating “’pit bull’ attacks” have been eliminated. Well of course they’ve been eliminated. ‘Pit bulls’ are banned in Winnipeg. You don’t have to be rocket scientist to figure that out. There are also no wooly mammoth attacks or saber toothed tiger attacks, either.
When Winnipeg banned ‘pit bulls’, German Shepherds, and their crosses, were far and away the most common biters in that city. After ‘pit bulls’ were banned, there was an average of close to 50 more bites per year, for the following decade. In addition to the rise in overall dog bites, the number of bites by German Shepherds and crosses, Labrador Retrievers and crosses, Terriers crosses, and Rottweilers and crosses, skyrocketed.
Kitchener is another example. The city of Kitchener banned ‘pit bulls’ in 1997, without ever having done an analysis on the city’s dog bite data. Only after ‘pit bulls’ were banned was it discovered they were #8 in the 1996 dog bite statistics, “right behind #7 Poodles,” as it is commonly said. In what could only be a deliberate attempt to mislead the public, officials immediately halted the collection of dog bite data by breed.
Even so, while we don’t know which breeds have been doing the biting, we can still determine if the ‘pit bull’ ban has been effective in reducing dog bites in Kitchener. Every animal bite is required, by law, to be reported to the Medical Officer of Health. With a sleuthing, it was discovered that dog bites haven’t been reduced at all, since ‘pit bulls’ were banned in 1997. They’ve remained pretty constant.
According to a BBC report, hospitalizations due to dog bites rose 25% after ‘pit bulls’ were banned in England.
Officials from most of the cities that have repealed breed-specific laws have used terms like “ineffective” and “unenforceable”.
16. All dog breeds are genetically identical. Even DNA can’t distinguish between a Chihuahua, a ‘pit bull’, a Great Dane, and a wolf. (Yes, while there are occasional claims of in-roads, in this area, using "markers", all dogs are still considered genetically identical.)
Those rare individuals with the personal expertise necessary to accurately attempt to determine a dog’s breed based on appearance alone typically are not employed in the various occupations charged with enforcing most breed-specific legislation. This leaves the subjective determination of a dog’s breed to the very inexpert animal control and shelter workers. In some cases, police officers must decide the dog’s breed, yet not one police officer is trained to (accurately) differentiate between dog breeds.
The same can be said of veterinarians. A veterinary license infers expertise in diagnosing and treating illness, for the most part. Neither practicing veterinarians nor veterinary students are required to prove any expertise in breed identification in order to obtain a license. Any expertise an individual veterinarian may possess, in terms of breed identification, or even dog training and behaviour, was most likely acquired outside the requirements of licensing.
Because the people enforcing breed-specific laws are not dog breed identification experts, the likelihood of misidentification is unconscionably great. (In Ontario, several dogs have already been misidentified, under breed-specific ordinances.)
17. "The public" is not in danger of unprovoked dog bites.
For instance, every recent dog-related fatality in Canada has involved dogs and victims residing within the same home. The same could be said for the majority of bites and attacks, as well.
This is very important information, in terms of quelling the public’s hysteria. “The public” is rarely involved in unprovoked biting incidents. Most bite victims knew the dog and were voluntarily interacting with it at the time of the bite. Most bite victims are bitten by their own dogs.
If you don’t own a dog, your risk of being bitten is very low. If you also don’t interact with dogs, or live next door to a dog that is routinely left unsupervised, or one that is known to behave aggressively, then your risk of being bitten is virtually nil.
Even when we don’t account for contributing factors (such as proximity) you are still more than 100 times more likely to be hit by lightning than killed by a dog. (In Canada, the likelihood of being killed by a dog you don’t know or live with is virtually zero.)
18. ‘Pit bulls’ are, if anything, less likely to bite.
In the U.S., ‘pit bulls’ are estimated to make up 9% of the dog population, yet they typically only make up 2-4% of dog bites, nationwide. In case your readers don’t understand what that means, it would be expected, purely on population alone, that 9% of dog bites would be attributed to ‘pit bulls’. Since less than half (even a third) of bites are reportedly caused by ‘pit bulls’, this suggests they’re much less likely to bite than should be expected.
19. ‘Pit bulls’ are less likely to kill than people.
In the U.S., even extremely conservative estimates suggest that only 0.00002% of the ‘pit bull’ population has killed. This is much lower than the human population (men, in particular).
Whatever someone’s views about ‘pit bulls’ might be, it can’t change the fact that at least 99.99998% have never, and will never, kill anyone.
20. 99.9% of all dogs, from all breeds, will never be involved in an attack.
Huge generalizations about dog breeds is not only unscientific, it’s not even practically accurate. I like to put it this way, “If any ‘breed’ were genetically programmed to attack, certainly more than 0.1% of them would.”
21. The media.
While I don’t want to get into a protracted discussion about the lack of honesty in media reports of dog bites, I will summarize by saying that reviewing media reports of dog biting incidents is not “research” because the media is extremely biased in regards to which stories it chooses to cover.
The media reports dog biting incidents involving ‘pit bulls’ to the near-exclusion of all others. In addition, they use other tactics to exaggerate the details, such as salacious language, or references to other dog biting incidents involving ‘pit bulls’.
There are countless incidents of media bias. In Ontario, a ‘pit bull’ killed another dog, and it was front-page news, that reappeared in the media for weeks. The owner was swiftly taken to jail. Around the same time, two Labs killed another dog, and attacked a ‘pit bull’ without any real media interest. The owner of the Labs was not charged with any serious offence.
There are other blatant incidents, as well. One weekend, two off-leash dogs (one of them being a ‘pit bull’) got into a squabble, and every major media agency reported the incident. That same weekend, a child was mauled by the family’s Golden Retriever, and not one media outlet covered the story.
A child was mauled so savagely by his grandfather’s Labrador Retriever, he required treatment at two Ontario hospitals. Only one media outlet covered this story in just one broadcast.
Again, relying on the media for the facts of dog biting cases is not advised.
Naturally, I could go on. But there you have a pretty good primer (off the top of my head), regarding the facts about the who, what, where, when, how, and why dogs bite unprovoked.
Because I kept encountering the same story, over and over and over again, in my research of dog biting incidents, I was led to create a dog bite prevention strategy that deals with the factors common to nearly all the cases I’d investigated.
I made it simple, and easy to remember. And I made sure not to include anything that would require an individual to develop some kind of expertise. People who don’t own dogs or aren’t experienced dog trainers still have a right to protect themselves from unprovoked dog bites. The following is what I call, the “3 Simple Steps to Dog Bite Prevention”:
1. Avoid unsupervised dogs.
2. Never leave children unsupervised with dogs.
3. Ensure our own dogs are properly trained and adequately supervised at all times.
By following these “3 Simple Steps”, we could virtually eliminate unprovoked dog bites in Canada.
It is not just important, but vital, to know what ACTUALLY causes dogs to bite unprovoked, if we ever hope to reduce those numbers. Obtusely theorizing about possible causes or solutions is not helpful and, as in the case of breed-specific legislation, is often harmful to both humans and dogs.
If you would like more information, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Marjorie Darby
Founder,
how do you know if you have an eating issue sm
i have so many emotions running through my mind every single day, but not going to get into all of them here. i hope i don't have an eating issue/disorder, but sometimes i wonder. i grew up in a strict household (my dad was immature and always telling me i was fat and needed to lose weight). i'm an average size 5 foot 7 girl. i'm 36 now and constantly think about food, how many calories something has, fat content. i gain weight easily. i just get so tired of worrying about what i'm going to eat, cause it'll make me fat. sometimes i will sneak eating food, because my husband will say things like "do you really need that?" and he's just trying to help. but what i really think is i want is to join WW and have group support from other people that are going through the same thing. my husband can drink about six sodas a day, eat whatever and he doesn't gain weight. he doesn't exercise. it just makes me sad that i have to work so hard to not be huge. i'm about 165. i would like to get down to at least 150 or maybe less. my parents used to tell me when i was little not to waste food (we were poor so wasting food was like wasting money).
i'm sorry, i'm rambling on, but i really don't have anyone to talk to. sometimes i think i'd like to see a counselor. (i have never seen a counselor) i have other issues that bother me but won't get into it.
thanks for listening, just wondered if anyone else has food issues. i'm a healthy person. i don't smoke or drink. never did drugs. i try to eat healthy. i especially overdo it in stressful situations. yesterday i ate a little less than a pint of butter pecan ice cream. then i felt crappy the rest of the evening.
well i stop now.
marihuana issue sm
Not on ballot here, never tried it, wouldn't know where to get it. Once heard one is equal to 12 cigarettes. Sister died of lung ca., so afraid of it, although I never smoked. There are days though when my back hurts so much I might try it if I had it, so glad I don't have access to it! Can't judge others, just glad I never used it, too much stress in my life, may get to be a habit I certainly don't that!
My take on the baby issue
After trying to get pregnant for 35 years and not able to I have had many heartaches of never knowing the feeling of having someone dependent upon you, show you love unconditionally, look into your eyes and say I love you mommy, etc, etc, etc. Parents tell me there is no greater joy than having a child, except for grandparents who say forget the kids, there's no greater joy than grandkids. HA HA.
On the other hand. I look back and am grateful I never did have kids and here is why.
First, I think being financially secure (meaning being able to afford them) is an absolute must must must. I too had friends who said "if you wait until you can afford them you'll never have them". So I replied (this was about 20 years ago) okay, I'm having a hard time paying my bills and sometimes don't have enough to cover my bills each month, so I have to shop lower for foot or "mooch" off of my parents or DH parents, but hey, lets just bring a child into the world to add to the costs of everything else, create more difficulties which then in turn leads to arguments between DH and I. I told her if I want children, I will do whatever I can to bring in more money before having a baby because God forbid something (illness, cancer, or anything) should happen to the child there are more costs involved. Then there is schooling, clothing, entertainment, etc. So all in all being financially secure enough to bring a child into the world has to be one of the most responsible things you do.
My husband and I tried for years and years and years to have a child. At the time we were trying we could afford have children without problem (this was about 20 years ago). We did all the test, took fertility drugs (both of us) and were prepared for having triplets, quadruplete, etc if that should happen. We thought it would with all the pills we were taking. Still nothing. I took that as a sign that I was a horrible person in a past life and this was my punishment. Now I take it as a blessing for many other reasons.
The second thing I would take into consideration is the state of the economy and world events happening. In my opinion (again this is my own personal feelings), I say who in their right mind would want to bring a child into this world. The world is too over populated, people losing houses, jobs, etc. Wars happening (which is very scary for niece and nephew as they are at the age that if a draft happens they would be called). People can't say a draft would never happen because you can't predict what will happen in the future. I know there are a lot of democrats in the office who have been talking about wanting to re-instate the draft, so it may or may not happen. But world events are a huge concern to me.
If you are in your late 20s you really do have so much more time to have children. I would definitely take everything into consideration. Maybe make a list with your husband about issues that will arise. How do you plan to raise your child. Religion, schooling, how strict, who will be getting up at 1 or 2 am to feed, change the baby, if there is a disagreement about something, which one of you will be the deciding factor and will the other one be able to give in.
Right now my advice (again my own personal feeling). Don't have kids just yet. Yes, they are adorable when they are little, but once they get older and start developing their own personality some turn away and don't act or behave the way you raised them. My neighbor next door has a 14 year old. She and her husband are nice. The kid is the most horrible kid around. He's a bully to the neighborhood kids, he cusses like you can't imagine. Worse than me (and I have a pretty foul mouth). One time he was in the backyard and used every single curse word in a single sentance and a neighbor lady yelled over and told him to watch his mouth (she wasn't feeling well and she was trying to get some rest) and he said to her "shut the f up or I'll come over and kill you". He treats his dog bad and on Halloween led it into the road where it was hit by a car and he was laughing (luckily it survived and is back to its normal self). There are other horrible horrible kids out there, so like my mom told me, just because you were a great kid growing up and you raise your kids the best you know how it doesn't mean that they will also turn out okay.
Anyway...that's just my thought on the subject - don't have them.
This issue gets rather funny though when
a couple has to appear before a judge and wants thus and such in their leaving one another and asking the courts to intervene. Basically, no marriage, no rights under the law. In my state, it is a 50/50 BUT, that is if you are married. Shacking, no such benefits.
For me the issue is his denial (lie?)
a 17-year-old inappropriate behavior. I agree with the other poster who questions what kind of a husband he has become over the years, BUT, the the trust issue cannot remain unresolved.
Here's the deal. If he can own up to the action and express regret for the behavior AND the lie, then it is not that hard to forgive and put it behind you. OTOH, if he can't, then you will spend your days wondering where the truth lies and watching his every more to see if he is still capable of the behavior AND what other lies he may have told you in the past or will tell you in the future. I personally would not choose to live like that.
Heart-to-heart is definitely in order here.
I disagree with most on this issue...
I do NOT think that the counselor should have said anything to the girl's parents at all. If she were pregnant, it would be evident soon enough. It is irresponsible for an adult to lend any credibility to this sort of gossip at all, not to mention embarassing to the girl to whom it happened. I had a similar situation in Junior High, only involving smoking and not pregnancy (which I understand is a big difference), but I was a straight A student who was horrified that I was accused of something that I never would have done. I can't imagine if it had been a pregnant rumor. Adults should not get in the middle of mean adolescent gossip, it only lends it validation.
I understand your issue here.
If you do not want to tell him what you are doing, I understand that too.
My kids' stepmom has a paint stick she was using on MY kids. I won't get started on that, but she did get turned in.
What I must say here is that if this kid is like this there are probably one of two main reasons for it that I probably don't need to say, but the kid and the dad need counseling.
Is there a way you can talk to someone at the school about it and maybe they can help you? I know that we went through the school counselor. If the kid is willing to talk to the counselor, they can call CPS and your name will never come up.
Even if your thyroid issue
was the cause of your hairloss, Rogaine could repair this. Consult your doctor again.
I have never heard of Topik.
|
