markomalley

No comment. Just want to make sure the comments stay captured:

For those who are really interested, Political Research Associates has a really good, detailed article that deals with Conspiracy Theories on their website, The Public Eye. The piece is called, Dynamics of Bigotry. (Caveat: this is a left-of-center website and I don't agree with their editorial position in general. This quality piece shows the truth of the concept of pointing out the speck in my eye while ignoring the 4X4 sticking out of your own. But the piece hyperlinked stil has a lot of value). An interesting quote from the piece cited above: In highlighting conspiracist allegation as a form of scapegoating, it is important to remember the following: All conspiracist theories start with a grain of truth, which is then transmogrified with hyperbole and filtered through pre-existing myth and prejudice, People who believe conspiracist allegations sometimes act on those irrational beliefs, which has concrete consequences in the real world, Conspiracist thinking and scapegoating are symptoms, not causes, of underlying societal frictions, and as such are perilous to ignore, Scapegoating and conspiracist allegations are tools that can be used by cynical leaders to mobilize a mass following, Supremacist and fascist organizers use conspiracist theories as a relatively less-threatening entry point in making contact with potential recruits, Even when conspiracist theories do not center on Jews, people of color, or other scapegoated groups, they create an environment where racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of prejudice and oppression can flourish. Skeptic Wiki and Wikipedia both also have detailed pieces on the subject. But with any of the above, caveat emptor!

Suggest you synopsize the following threads: To repeat, Sunesis is probably your best resource on the subject. For a hoot, you can check out the Loose Change thread over in 'tacks. TWI and VPW are not the only conspiracy theory mongers out there...

I'm looking for a EE (with a clearance), but I'm in MD, not NC. Sorry.

By the way, the HTML code used above was as follows: <table border=5><tr><td><img src="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphics/AT03/refresh/AL0306W5_sm2+gif/115550W_sm.gif" width=500></tr></td></table> HTML Code Tutorial Don't forget to select HTML On - Auto Linebreak Mode below the text editing box if you want to use HTML.

This is becoming a pain in the butt. If you don't see the image immediately, please press F5 to reload the page.

That's curious. Because that's the reason I went over to Geico was that they DID cover us in Italy. (I'd been overseas enough to know that if I went with a local insurer when overseas that I'd have to pay premium rates when I got back to the states because of a "lapse in coverage")

I had GEICO for years. No real complaints with them, until it came time to switch. Then they were a pain in the butt. I now have USAA insurance. For the most part, that is open to current or retired military, but if you had USAA when either you or spouse (I know that's not you Belle, but might be somebody), or if your (again may not apply) parents had USAA insurance, then you'd be eligible. Last time I compared, they were over 25% cheaper than the nearest competition. Also, they have some really good financial services available (car loans, mortgages, private investments, etc.) As far as what's reasonable, that depends upon a bunch of factors: - your driving record - your age - your sex - the value of the car and whether you own or not - the size of the engine - the body style (I remember hearing once that a 2-door was more costly than the 4-door equivalent, because it was considered a "sports car") - where you live. They do things sometimes county-by-county. So if you are in a county known for car theft and have some way your vehicle can be registered in a lower theft county, you may save a lot. Particularly if you have comprehensive coverage.

Thanks everybody for the nice words. Sounds like we have a few others who aren't satisfied watching HGTV or TLC and want to do it for themselves. WhiteDove: the funny thing is that, in a way, LCM was right. A house does tie you down. A house does consume a batch of time. A house sometimes can be an expensive, time consuming money pit. And if your personal goal in life is to be on some missionary vocation, a house is exactly the WRONG thing to have. But where he got it wrong was that only a few are called to be on that full-time vagabond circuit riding missionary thing. Most are called to be Christians in their communities and workplaces. After all...in the book of Acts, St. Paul's epistles, and elsewhere in the New Testament, there was mention of only a small percentage of folk going out and doing the travelling apostle thing. Most people lived and died in their cities and went to their churches and lived with their fellow believers. Trying to treat life so that EVERYBODY was able to do so, whether called to do so or not, was just another example of a misinterpretation of a perfectly good Biblical principle...one that resulted in yet another perversion of the Faith. But, don't get me wrong...there WAS a little truth in what he said. Just not applied (in ANY way whatsoever) like how he said it.

It's summer. (Duh) And as a homeowner, I don't own my home, it owns me. Ever hear the expression that in Minnesota there are two seasons: winter and road construction? (replace MN with the state of your choice) Around the house, there are two seasons...indoor project season and outdoor project season. My current project is a pond: About 75% done in the pics above...but already planning on the next project. (What's left? pour a walkway, mortar up the border stones, and mulch around the plants) And it's running about 93 degrees with a humidity of 99% (step outside and get drenched with sweat) Anybody else have any projects to talk about?

Any of these browser helper objects (toolbars) could be considered spyware. From the Google Toolbar website: Google takes privacy issues very seriously. While we do not generally collect information about the webpages our users visit, if users are running the Google Toolbar with advanced features enabled, Google may collect information about webpages that they are viewing. The advanced features of the Google Toolbar are PageRank, AutoLink, SpellCheck, and WordTranslator. For the PageRank feature, we need the URLs of the sites users visit so we can send them the PageRank (our measure of the site's importance) for the site they're viewing; for AutoLink, we need the addresses on the page they're visiting so we can turn those addresses into links; for SpellCheck, we need the words users type so we can correct any spelling mistakes; and for WordTranslator, we need the words users hover over so we can provide translations. Please be assured that in all of these cases, we do not require you to provide any personally identifiable information such as your name, email address, or telephone number. (comment from me: see below) Realizing that some users prefer even this non-personal information not be transmitted, AutoLink, SpellCheck, and WordTranslator will only send information to Google if users choose to use them (this means clicking on the AutoLink or SpellCheck buttons on the Toolbar, or enabling the WordTranslator in the Toolbar Options menu). Also, users who download the Google Toolbar choose whether they want PageRank enabled or disabled before installation is completed. All of these features can also be disabled from the Toolbar Options menu. Finally, of course, it is not necessary to download the Toolbar to search Google from www.google.com From: Google Toolbar FAQ Now all of this depends upon your personal level of paranoia and the trust you have with Google and their ethical business practices. But please note, despite the reassuring tone, what they said: If you use spell check, they will transmit the words you check to their site If you use Autolink, they need the addresses If you use WordTranslator, again they need the words If you want to use PageRank, they need to collect how many people go to a given page If you don't like it, don't use the features. If you really don't like it, don't download the toolbar!!! In regards to the statement Google made above, Please be assured that in all of these cases, we do not require you to provide any personally identifiable information such as your name, email address, or telephone number: Google says the following on their privacy notice: If you have Google Toolbar Version 4.0 or above, your copy of Google Toolbar includes a unique application number. When you install Google Toolbar, this number and a message indicating whether the installation succeeded are sent back to Google. Also, when Google Toolbar automatically checks to see if a new version is available, the current version number and the unique application number are sent to Google. The unique application number is required for Google Toolbar to work and cannot be disabled. So Google can track each installed toolbar uniquely. And the actions done by that installation. But they don't collect your name, address, etc. (having said that, given your unique Internet browsing habits, it may not be all that difficult to narrow that information down) (FWIW, last time I checked, the US military prohibits the use of any of these Browser Helper Objects to be installed on their computers. Many large companies also prohibit their installation. Just something else to consider) So the bottom line is this: how much do you trust Google? If you trust them, feel free to use their product. If you don't, then you may want to think about removing their BHO.

It's Visa, not Amex!

HTML...learn it, love it, live it :) on edit: to add the hyperlink.

A British version of the classic Monopoly board game released this week substitutes a Visa-imprinted debit card for the stacks of yellow, blue and purple play money long hoarded by children worldwide. "We started looking at what Monopoly would look like if we designed it today," said Chris Weatherhead, a Britain.-based spokesman for Hasbro Inc., which makes the best-selling board game. "We noticed consumers are using debit cards, carrying around cash a lot less." British players might not be the only ones switching to plastic. Officials at Pawtucket-based Hasbro say they're considering a similar change for American versions. First offered in 1935, Monopoly offered players a form of financial escapism during the country's worst financial depression. Players become pretend real estate magnates who compete for fictitious property named after real places in Atlantic City, N.J. A British version released that same year featured London neighborhoods. In the new British version of Monopoly Here & Now, players type amounts into a palm-sized scanner and swipe their debit cards to seal the deal. (remainder snipped) Source: ap/yahoo I like it: makes credit card use far more viable and "normal" I wonder how much Visa will get in royalties!

Funny you mention ritalin: The kids conundrum The drug culture seduces children as well as adults. The number of school-age children on stimulants — drugs like Ritalin, Adderall, Stratera and Concerta — doubled between 1995 and 2002, according to CDC figures. Physicians prescribe them for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. Some worry that they are prescribing them too often — mistaking performance or behavior problems in school for ADHD, for which there is no simple lab test, Schatzberg, the psychiatry chief, says. “Just because kids don’t do well in school doesn’t mean they have attention-deficit disorder,” he notes. David Magnus, PhD, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, says he believes use of stimulants is part of the trend toward medicalization of conditions once considered a normal part of life. “Before Ritalin, almost no one had ADHD. Then suddenly everybody’s got it. We used to call this childhood — kids being distracted and having too much energy,” says Magnus, associate professor (teaching) of pediatrics. “Now we have a drug that makes them act more like adults. I’m sure for a percentage of children this drug is useful. But I’m also sure that the marketing of drugs is heavily influencing the creation of these disease categories and decisions about who belongs in them.” Nowhere is the issue of drug use more controversial than in psychotropic medications for children. Between 1995 and 2002, the number of youngsters on antidepressants skyrocketed from 1.1 million to 3.1 million, with some arguing that doctors prescribed them cavalierly to children who weren’t properly diagnosed or carefully monitored. After studies linked the medicines to a slight increase in suicidal behavior, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in October 2004 issued a stringent safety warning on antidepressant use in children. Primary care providers and psychiatrists since have become more cautious in prescribing the drugs, balancing their risks to young patients with the potential benefits. Schatzberg says he’s concerned now that some children might go untreated, leading to an increased risk of suicides. From Standford Medicine Magazine, Summer 2005 Good point!

Yeah, Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika... We have more and more of our individual liberties taken away as part and parcel of us being able to suck at the teat of the momma pig socialist State. First, smoking nazis....then saturated fat nazis. A number of states are now weighing children in and putting the results on the kids' report cards. I wonder when the first parents will be charged with child abuse for having a fat kid. Sorry, Garth, I see a generalized trend nowadays that we are sacrificing our personal liberties in the cause of security, safety, and what the "experts say...." Forced abortions? I wonder when. Seriously.... At the heart of the controversy over a mentally handicapped person's right to engage in or refrain from activities or decisions related to sexual matters, e.g., sexual intercourse, sterilization, abortion, birth control, is the person's comprehension of such matters and the concomitant ability to make a knowing choice to accept the inherent risks. Although some might think that it is paradoxical to believe that a mentally incompetent person could have the capacity to make a reasoned and informed decision on these issues, as the New York Court of Appeals pointed out in Rivers v. Katz, 67 N.Y. 2nd 485 (Ct. App., 1986), a finding of mental incompetence does not necessarily apply to every aspect of a person's life. Under our law, individuals may be incompetent in some areas but still retain the capacity to make decisions concerning one's own body. To decide whether a mentally disabled person can make his or her own sexual decisions, an inquiry must first be made into whether this individual has the capacity to make a personal decision on matters relating to his or her own body. If not, it might be appropriate in some cases to have a court or another person legally designated as the appropriate decision-maker, such as a parent, spouse or adult child, for the mentally handicapped person to pursue basic personal privacy rights. In some circumstances, a refusal "to provide a technique for vindication of a basic constitutional right is itself an unconstitutional deprivation." Matter of Grady, 405 A.2nd 851 (NJ. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1979), and, on appeal, “Our Court should accept the responsibility of providing her with a choice to compensate for her inability to exercise personally an important constitutional right.” Matter of Grady, 426 A.2d 467, 481 (N.J., 1981); “We conclude that the present legislative scheme, which absolutely precludes the sterilization option, impermissibly deprives developmentally disabled persons of privacy and liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution…” Conservatorship of Valerie N. 707 P.2d 760, 771-772 (Cal., 1985). From: NY State Commission on Quality of Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities Yes, I know we're talking about mentally disabled people here. But note the bolded verbiage: a minor, according to many who have posted here, does not have the capacity to make his own decisions. Not a very big leap... Involuntary euthanasia was something that we thought went out with the nazis, but the Groningen Protocol is the procedure currently allowed in the Netherlands where involuntary euthanasia can be legally allowed. There are a lot of issues that were unthinkable not all that many years ago that are now commonplace.

breaking news: ACCOMAC, Va. (AP) -- An Accomack County Circuit Court judge granted a temporary stay for a 16-year-old Eastern Shore cancer patient who doesn't want to be forced by the state to undergo chemotherapy. A juvenile court judge had ordered Starchild Abraham Cherrix and his parents to report to CHKD by 1:00 p.m. and denied a stay of that order. But the Circuit Court judge Tuesday said Cherrix won't have to submit to treatment and also granted his parents full custody instead of having that custody shared with Social Services, From: WVEC News

False analogy. His decision, were he between one and two years older, would be completely legal. A hypothetical decision to use, with parental consent, heroin, would be completely illegal (regardless of his date of birth).

The 16 year old and his parents made a reasoned decision. I, personally, don't agree with that decision...but it is the decision they made. If we didn't live in this nanny state of governmental control, it would be a perfectly legal one, as well. Unfortunately for this young man, he was born two years later than he wishes he would have been... Please keep in mind that the young man has been through the course of standard treatment already. That means he had all the chemo...and his cancer was declared to be in remission. When the cancer came back, rather than face yet another course of chemo, this young man did his research at alternatives (again, let me state that I don't agree with the conclusion) and his parents, who are ultimately responsible, support his decision. I'm sorry, but I have a major problem with the government stepping in and interfering in this case. There is a major problem in this country where a 13 year old girl can go out and get an abortion without her parents' knowledge (in six states, without even having to get a court order affirming the decision and in four others, where the court ordered requirement is winked at) but where a 16 year old young man can't have a voice in his treatment. Sorry, folks, that's too much government for my taste. Think about it a second. Many, many people are emancipated at age 16. In many, if not most, states, a person can be married at age 16 (at which point, the person is automatically emancipated). We're not talking about a six year old or an eleven year old, we're talking about a person who is mere months away from being old enough to join the military (a person can join at age 17). If he had neglectful or abusive parents, he could likely sue for emancipation and be granted full rights. Instead, this afternoon he will likely be handcuffed and taken to the hospital by force. If he doesn't cooperate at the hospital, it's likely that he'll be strapped to a gurney and have the treatment forced on him. Why? Because some stupid social worker decided that he/she knew best. Hopefully there will be video... Once again, let me re-emphasize that I DO NOT agree with the decision. The only way where I would agree is if, statistically, he had only a marginal chance of survival after this second course of chemo (chemo done merely to prolong life, rather than to cure the disease). I've seen no indication that this is the case, so I think he made the wrong decision. But...it's neither my decision nor the State's decision. It's his decision...with the consent of his parents (until he is 18 or is emancipated). Sorry...I really don't want to live in a totalitarian state. Maybe later.

Welcome, all, to the Peoples Democratic Republic of Amerika. Geez.

Ever hear of the Groningen Protocol? What you say is the "what if" is unrealistic. It might be right now...(unless you're in China, of course)

I appreciate what you're saying, but disagree with you. It is, in fact, a good analogy: Chemotherapy Dilation and Curetage Medical Procedure Medical Procedure Legal in 50 states Legal in 50 states Prescribed by Physician Prescribed by Physician Under 18 requires parental consent(or has court order) Under 18 requires parental consent(or has court order) The only difference is the petitioner who obtained the court order. (Frankly, in the case of abortion law, the euphamism "juditical bypass" is used, but it's still a court order) (Note: according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, there are six states where parental consent or court order aren't required for minor females to obtain an abortion: Conneticut, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington) Now, the question I asked (not just to you, Krys, but to the crowd in general) was: Would reactions be the same if the State determined that an abortion was medically advisable (let's say for psychological reasons) for a 16 year old female. The female and the female's parents didn't want her to have one. Should the State be able to take the child from the parents, duct tape her feet to the stirrups, and perform a D&C on her without her consent? I fully realize that the right to an abortion is the fundamental right afforded to females in this country. The argument about the morality of such a right being afforded is out of scope of this discussion. The question is not the legality of abortion, but what if a state's social services agency petitioned a court to order that a 16-year old female have an abortion, because the state social services agency believed that it was medically advisable for the female to have an abortion, rather than carry the baby to term.

And an analogous question: Would reactions be the same if the State determined that an abortion was medically advisable (let's say for psychological reasons) for a 16 year old female. The female and the female's parents didn't want her to have one. Should the State be able to take the child from the parents, duct tape her feet to the stirrups, and perform a D&C on her without her consent? Krys, I would be more sympathetic to the State (not very much more sympathetic, but at least I could comprehend the position) had the kid not already gone through a round of chemo.

David, I was going to enter into this argument by contrasting how a 16 year old can demand an abortion. But, then, I realized it was the same principle. The court decides it is in the child's best interest for the child to have an abortion and orders the same (sealing the record so that the parents can't find out). The fact that the child is the petitioner in this case, rather than social services, is a minor, inconsequential difference. The one question I'd have, though, is if the parents still would be financially responsible for the chemotherapy...since the State has taken that part of custody from them.

A judge has ordered the parents of a 16-year-old Chincoteague boy with Hodgkin's disease to return their son to conventional chemotherapy on Tuesday rather than continue the alternative treatment he prefers. (snip) The family has been fighting in court since May to allow Abraham to use an alternative treatment called the Hoxsey method, which consists of an organic diet and herbal supplements. (snip) When tests in February found the lymphatic cancer still active, doctors ordered more chemotherapy, plus radiation. Abraham decided the treatment was doing more harm than good and visited a clinic in Mexico to start the Hoxsey method instead. His parents, Jay and Rose Cherrix, supported him. A Social Services attorney asked the court to order Abraham back to treatment for his own well-being. On Friday, Judge Jesse E. Demps of Accomack County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court agreed with Social Services and said Abraham 's parents were to deliver him to CHKD by 1 p.m. Tuesday and give their consent to whatever treatment the hospital deems necessary. (snip) Friday's court directive follows an order filed by the same judge in May finding Jay and Rose Cherrix guilty of medical neglect and dividing custody of the boy between the parents and the Department of Social Services. The parents maintained physical custody but were told by Social Services in June that Abraham could possibly be removed from his parents' custody to get conventional treatment depending on the judge's decision. That has happened in other cases across the country. In Texas, a 12-year-old girl was removed from her parents' custody last year when they chose an alternative treatment instead of radiation to address her Hodgkin's disease. She was returned to her parents after five months. According to a blog established by her family, she is now receiving alternative treatment in an undisclosed clinic. Stepanovich said the family is still concerned Abraham might one day be removed from their custody. However, Friday's order did not make any change in custody; it dealt solely with resuming conventional treatment. Source: Virginia Pilot I heard an interview with Abraham and his father this afternoon. According to what they said in this interview, the father asked (sarcastically) if they would tie him down and duct tape his mouth to force him to get this chemo. The social services response was that they would show up with an armed police officer, remove Abraham from the house, and place him somewhere or with somebody who would do just that if necessary to allow the hospital to perform the chemo. Apparently, according to what they said in this interview, Social Servcices directly threatened Abraham with: a) putting him in a foster home and b) putting him in juvenille detention along with kids being confined for assault, drug dealing, etc. Now, for those of you who cruise the 'tacks forum, you will note a trend in my posts where I am opposed to the nanny state. You may also note that I am a supporter of parents' rights over the rights of the state. Folks, it would be one thing if Abraham was doing something that the parents didn't approve of. It would be one thing if his behavior was uncontrollable. It would be one thing if he was in fights constantly, dealing drugs, a gang member, or whatever. But when he makes a rational decision that the parents fully approve of, that's something else completely! Since when does the State have the right to control a 16-year old's medical treatment? Particularly when the parents are in full agreement with it? You may not agree with that decision, but doesn't the kid AND HIS PARENTS have the right to make the decision? Where am I wrong here? (Of course, FWIW, IMHO, YMMV...as always)