Now you sound like you have issue in the money thing
Posted By: How on 2008-02-14
In Reply to: well....no wonder..... - :P
talking about the money husband makes and my getting a lot of money, sounds like greenen-eyed jealousy to me. This son has not visited me since when I married in early 2000s I said closing the ank, it was very obvious from then what their terms were. I do not care nor will I be around people who do not care for me. As long as I came across with $$$$$ it was visit time, DIL calling, etc. etc. - that stopped suddenly- so now think about that.
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
Oh yeah money is another issue with my SIL
My brother was making just a little above minimum wage so he went to school full time and worked full time for two solid years (summers, intersessions, everything) to get his associate's degree in AutoCAD. He is now making $25+ per hour but I have no idea where it is going. They live in an absolute pigsty - SIL is not currently working, has not been for about 5 years, although she worked part-time for a while before that.
She takes care of the money (BIG mistake on his part) and she does stuff like one day she decided she didn't want to pay the notes on a loan they had gotten (signature loan). Things like that have ruined his credit.
But he still stays....
Also didn't mention the money issue at the party, just in private to her (nm)
x
i disagree somewhat. i don't think this particular issue needs to become a race thing, but sm
i sure think if the government would crack down tighter on all the non-Americans coming into our country, some of this violence would be cut down. yes, americans are violent too, but why allow more? look at 911, if those guys were never allowed in our country, it would not have happened. same thing here. my mother works at a prison and she says hispanics are 90% of the population and majority of them are gangs. i know there are good and bad in every race, it isn't necessarily a race thing. i am only referring to the illegal, violent non-americans here, not the race in general. i am not racist, but i do believe in protecting our nation as a whole. i am just saying tighter security measures and background checks should become priority before letting some in our country because obviously they aren't doing a good job at security measures as a whole.
You make it sound like it's a good thing --
Are you just being sarcastic? I hope so. I love kids, but seriously, this country can't afford to have women having more children than they can afford. Look at the mess we're in now with welfare, not to mention the abuse and neglect these children suffer. I live in a very rural, low income area. I have seen so many children whose parents don't care for them, yet they continue to "pop out" more babies to get more welfare benefits.
If this becomes a new trend, the govt will end up removing the welfare caps in order to support these children. I know it's not the children's fault, but it isn't my fault either. I'm tired of paying for the welfare system as it is.
One thing I do is I have an auto money transfer - sm
set up from our checking account, it takes out $50 a week and transfers it over to savings. Granted I use it when I have to but have about $1500 over there now that way. We also have money taken out of my DHs check before we see it and it goes into the 401K, we save over $11K a year that way and we are not maxed out at 15% as yet. We are pretty cash poor but have a great retirement fund so in 20+ years we won't starve at least.
How much money rasied for Katrina, how much money for the diasters due to the tidal waves and what?
Every single one of them have had some smoke around it with the money not getting to where it was supposed to go. I did not contribute, I hardly watched, was not caught up again as I have seen things like this before. They should give a all you can give benefit for Darfur where people are being massacared each and every day. Genocide going on there each and every day. I have not seen any benefits to help them out yet.
But her money is her money to spend as she pleases -
I don't understand how you can think it is wrong for her to spend whatever she wants to on whatever she buys. It is their personal money they spend. It is not like they are saying give me those shoes and add it to the taxpayer's bill.
And in all actuality, they are saying spend, spend, spend to get the economy going.
I am sorry, I am jealous that some people still have plenty of money to spend and I don't, but I don't expect those people to quit spending just because I had to.
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.
Very contraversial issue....sm
Well I can't say I have never tried pot. I don't think it is something that should be used on a regular basis. It is just like cigarettes, dangerous to your health. It has about the same effect on your lungs. So I don't recommend pot but it is definitely not like Meth, cocaine, etc. While I don't put pot in the category of harder drugs, I just don't choose to do it.
Prostituion I think is disgusting. I think it should be illegal because of diseases and morality.
We did not have that issue when we moved here -sm
back in 1998. There were two agents, our agent represented us and only us. Sale went smoothly and quickly. We even rented our old house for a month after we sold it to make our move smoother. We had a few things we wanted done to the new house before we moved into it. It all went quite smoothly with no problems. I have two friends here too that are real estate agents, never discussed that with them, but curious now and will. One helped us buy some land a few years ago, again no problems with representation, 2 agents, she took care of us and we had a huge issue of an oil/mineral rights lease to get invalidated which took some time to get taken care of...our neighbors love us as we got it removed for the whole subdivision, not just our lot. We were not about to buy property with that hanging over our head, whether the others knew or not who knows, but our real estate agent and lawyer made sure we knew what we were getting into.
I really think there is a mental issue going on
She is actually quite a bit older than us. I am in my late 20s and my husband is in his mid-30s and this woman is 50. We met her years ago when we used to work together.
She wouldn't tell us exactly why she lost her job and was very, very vague in the details. I have a feeling that there is more going on than she would reveal to us, but I really don't even care at this point.
I honestly do believe that her husband is caught right in the middle of all of this, esepcially since we haven't heard a single word from him in weeks. She was very, very nasty in her email that she sent, which included several personal attacks, all of which were completely untrue accusations.
This is a direct quote from her email that she sent today:
"i should not be surprised because u dont take care of ur own financial commitments either and often get in over your head. If you had gotten urself into a mess financially i would have helped you out because we were friends, i now expect that you can deliver the money you owe us over here at the soonest possible time."
The woman can't even spell! Also, she doesn't know anything about our finances. We own a house, 2 cars, always work LOTS of extra hours, and always pay our bills. For her to say that is absolutely insane. She is just in such a desperate state and is beyond frustrated because we refuse to pay her anything.
Oh, and she even said in her email that we owed him $456!!! Where did that amount come from?!?! Yesterday it was $300, which was still outragenous!
Sorry for the long vent...again! LOL
The advice below is not dealing with the issue at
hand - these people popping into your lives uninvited. I can relate - bunch of games designed just to torture you and your kids. I would totally go for the jugular to end this once and for all. The hutzpah of these people to sit in front of you and not talk to you at YOUR kids' Christmas play! Good Lord. I would go to a lawyer, any lawyer, and pay $100 or $200 bucks for a cease-and-desist letter, stating that they are NOT to attend YOUR kids' functions as they are not invited, etc., and are causing irreparable harm to YOUR kids. There will be those who chime in that this is a free world, etc., but its NOT a free world for grandparents to screw with your kids' minds. YOU are the parents and are in charge of your kids' welfare. Its a school, and its PRIVATE in that regard. Any old bum off the street cannot attend when it is AGAINST the wishes of the parents of the children in the play. As Dr. Phil would say, take your power back. Put YOUR foot down as their mom and draw the line forever. Your kids and your husband need you at this point. Go for it. I did years ago, and have never regretted one day WITHOUT my sick inlaws. My kids are in their teens now, and just last night were sitting around talking about the sick games that their grandparents used to play, and how happy they were that we put an end to it. Go for it! Let this be the LAST CHRISTMAS, or last day, ruined by these creeps. And I love the analogy someone gave below - your kids are nothing but Christmas turkeys for them to play with - do NOT fall for the tales of woe and love. Baloney!
But did you not notice, the neck issue
was resolved because the show had fixed her hair in a more becoming manner than did not expose her neck like when she first came on. I noticed the same thing at first but then here at tne end, not sticking out like a sore thumb.
Apparently so many confused on this issue!!
His aunt, who died, knew him by this name. His brother does not respect his new name and has been asked to call him this PRIOR TO ANY FUNERAL. Friend apparently does not think silly after having asked before to be called that - numerous times, not just now. Most women when they marry have a name change- would most of them want to go by their old names? Most, underline that- so it is not taken out of text, would want to have their new name. Why is it different for a man?? His family comes around his new stepdaughter and son-in-law and calls him by his old name which they stepdauhter and SIL DO not know him by. Those are his wishes and here in America, I think most of us want our wishes to be observed. Oh about who cares- he does.
I think you brought in issue when you said biracial.
NM
Weighing in on the communication issue
My husband (of 25 years) is also reluctant to talk about certain things from the past. I have gleaned some information from his sister and others. I do know that some things about his childhood were painful, and so I only hear bits and snatches of things that he remembers with fondness.
My husband is not being secretive; in fact, he admits that there are things he just does not want to have come into his mind all the time, so he doesn't want to talk about them. I get that.
Perhaps something that seems mundane to the rest of us like schooling really has negative emotional connotation to the OP's husband. I would surmise that his not telling her has nothing to do with whether he is forthcoming or honest. It might have to do with his own emotional well-being and he is much happier keeping it in the past.
I would rather my husband be happy than to fixate on something that I don't need to know about.
The gender wouldn't be an issue with me, because
I have it too. I know this isn't going to solve the stigma issue (sm)
but it is a start
So many aspects to the issue - my reply
Some other view points... Please note, my capitalizing the word SOME below is not intended to be yelling or sarcasm - I would have bolded it and kept it lowercase if I could. My purpose is only to stress that we all feel and think about the issues different, from our own perspectives, and some of us think thisaway...
1. ALL of the candidates are bad mouthing each other. Yes, Hillary is doing bad mouthing too. So is her husband.
2. SOME people do not count being First Lady as "governmental experience." Some people actually PREFER Barack Obama's (a beautiful name, to some) relative inexperience because they have confidence he is a very smart man who will surround himself with others in his cabinet to make up for any area he might be lacking in.
3. Being open-minded might not including saying things like "let's not be stupid about things" which could imply people might be considered (I am trying to post this but it will not let me include the word that was just included in post I am replying to that started with stu and ends in id) if they don't do as you are encouraging them to do... or implying if we were older or using our heads instead of our hearts, we wouldn't support Barack Obama... Maybe some of us STILL support Obama and we are of all ages..of all colors... of all religious affiliations (even Jewish, or even no religion), and we are fully capable, fully informed to do so with a balance of both our hearts AND our heads...
4. SOME people might consider the trail of corruption surrounding the Clintons (and that means Hillary) as a deterrent. Some people think Barack Obama is surrounded by less corruption... I said LESS, not none.
5. SOME people consider Hillary to be the "good old boy" candidate - i.e., the Status Quo candidate, and that is why they don't support her. They want change. She does not offer this from what many in this country can see.
6. SOme people feel that Bill - her husband - is a liability and does not add to her supposed years of experience.
7. SOME people might consider Hillary to have shown incredibly poor judgment by making the highly public choice to stay with a philanderer, a liar, and a man who has been accused not just of marital infidelities but of even worse and darker actions towards women (try a Google on Bill if you forget...). SOME people believe those past choices show how power hungry she is... and SOME people feel she might show the same kind of poor judgment in being the head of this country.
8. There is NO squeaky clean candidate out there.
Peace.
I had an issue like that with my youngest a while back.
Turns out he was super constipated and the liquid from above was seeping around it. Probably a good idea to get that checked.
Yes, I do know how to read and I know from experience about this medical issue
as my own granddaughter born with it. Please don't just assume things. She is now 15 and has traveled with me in a closed car for long distances and gone on many trips out of town and never this problem. I think she would be horrified to pass gas in front of others, but then she was brought up correctly. This is why the kids do what they do now days, because parents do not have the backbone to call them down about it and just want to fuss at the schools. Who, pray tells, wants to be in a classroom with boys and girls both doing this? Do you? If there is a medical condition (although I know of none) then I would advise the parents to try to find something to ease this because a child, if reared correctly, would absolutely be horrified doing this around their peers. Apparently there is more than just 1 person doing this- why would a school say they were going to put rules in effect. All you have to do is pay attention. Not just 1 student doing, more than 1, dear. If the parents would get off their duffs and try disciplining and putting down rules and regulations, this would not be brought up in the school system. People now are scared of their own children. Pitiful!!!
Bringing my issue with grandparents and cousins to the top
I am sorry, I got myself out of town for the weekend to get away. I am still at a loss. I have tried contacting my grandparents numerous times to no avail. I emailed my sister, and she talked to my grandmother who said she has simply "missed my calls." Thank you all for letting me vent Friday and giving me opinions. I will not stoop to their level. Also, to the poster who asked why I think the baby's name had to do with it, it is because she kept saying, "Figure it out, Daddy's girl" and because when I asked if that was it, she said, "What baby, did I say something about a baby" and "aren't you a little Einstein."
Thanks again all!
Hmmm...there never was a stray issue in that city!
I wouldn't want to make policy on this issue
With my own cats, though, I have always harness trained them. You put a harness on them instead of a collar and hook the harness to a long leash that's clipped to the clothesline. They can run up and down the length of the clothesline and it seems to satisfy their need to be outside. They can chase butterflies, watch squirrels, and sniff all the good smells that are out there. I didn't want them running loose because there are too many things that are dangerous and could hurt them. I also didn't want them getting into neighbor's trash.
I'm not in favor of cats running loose b/c it's too likely they'll get run over or otherwise hurt, but I'm not sure it's as bad as the article states. Atleast not with domestic cats. Sounds to me more like a feral cat problem. They need to know for sure before making laws that might not even fix the problem.
Yes, they know and it's fixed. Not virus some Javascript issue.
//
In Michigan they will issue an arrest warrant
If you don't show up for jury duty, they will issue a warrant. Wondering where the case was that a rapist was released due to juror not showing up? Something doesn't sound quite right there.
Would it still work if thyroid issue is causing it?
It seems like that might make it a different story, but I hope I am wrong.
I hope it (or something) helps you out. :)
Since this is a serious health issue, may be best to speak with the physician...sm
taking care of your in-law. None of us that patient's physician, and warfarin and the medical conditions it treats can be very tricky and dangerous. The best advice may come from the poster whose husband is on the same medication, not from Google. I am not bashing anyone or saying people don't know what they are talking about. We are intelligent people who do have vast medical knowledge, but this type of question really should be handled by the particular patient's doctor, the one who knows all of the history, any food allergies or reactions, etc.
You most definitely should speak to someone if you will even be remotely involved in the patient's care when she returns home. Someone needs to have an objective insight, and sometimes when a family member is sick, the ones closest to them do not understand all the instructions and such, especially someone who sounds really ill. Your knowledge could be very valuable to them.
Don't be afraid to ask the doctors and nurses anything. That is what they are there for. They treated this patient, and they have the responsibilty to make sure the patient gets the best care possible at home to help with recovery. Our thoughts will be with you, and let us know how she is doing.
Child support is a separate issue from visitation. nm
x
Today's Oprah show is on the healthcare issue
Looks like an interesting show. Lisa Ling confronts some insurance companies on why they won't cover certain procedures, etc. It should be an interesting debate. What a mess our system is! One suggestion by a guest on the show is that all companies provide the same healthcare package, same rates, etc. Now that's a great idea!
I wanted to get some opinions about something I did in anger regarding a family issue.
Okay, let me just give a little background first. My husband has bipolar disorder as did his mother. His mother disappeared in 1999 and is presumed dead. He has never gotten over that. My husband is also an alcoholic. Over this past year, he fell off the wagon and his mental health has deteriorated. In May, he tried to overdose on Ambien and was hospitalized for week in the VA Mental Health Unit. This past Monday, he drank himself into oblivion and slit his wrists, severe enough that he required stitches. He is now spending at least two weeks in psychiatric facility outside the VA system (because the government does not take care of our veterans, but don't get me started!). He does not remember cutting himself.
We have two children and as you can imagine this was all very upsetting for them. I called my father-in-law the day that all that happened to ask him to help me with his son. I left a lengthy voicemail saying I was trying to protect his grandkids and take of his son and that he barely has any contact with his son since he remarried. I said that his son was still his son and needed his help. My FIL never even bothered to call me back nor did he call my husband (I left the number for the facility on my message). He didn't even call Christmas Day!
The thing is my FIL and his wife are very self-righteous Christians except that they only play at being Christian for appearance sake. When someone really, REALLY needs them, they only offer prayer. My husband has a brother who is a convicted child molester serving a 20 year sentence in prison for molesting his own daughter. My FIL and his wife have made a huge show of ministering to the child molester. They visit him regularly. They fill his prison account up with money so he can buy a TV and a typewriter to have in his cell. He was up for parole this past year and they spent thousands of dollars on an attorney and thousands of hours making phone calls and writing letters on his behalf to get him out on parole. They tell everyone they know how they have sacrificed and ministered to this son. And he is born again now and all will be wonderful when he is released.
By my husband, his other son, never hears from his dad. His father never visits. My kids get gifts sent to them on their birthdays and at Christmas, but he rarely talks to them or sees them.
Suffice it to say, there is A LOT of background info. Last night, after I lied to my husband about his father knowing he was in the hospital (I said his father didn't know because my husband was wondering why his father hadn't called) I became very, VERY angry. So I retrieved email addresses of friends and family my FIL and his wife from old forwarded emails that I had saved. And then I wrote a very long, very detailed email about my FIL and his wife, about my BIL and his crimes, and then I ended it with an excerpt of scripture and a paragraph saying we are called to love our children unconditionally as our Heavenly Father loves us and we should never turn our backs on any of our children.
I then sent this email. After I sent it, I started to maybe think I shouldn't have done it. When I'm angry, I tend to let go without thinking. So what do you guys think? Was I right or wrong? And if I shouldn't have sent the email, should I now send a followup email explaining I was angry and apologize or should I just leave it alone and figure the damage is already done?
|
