nm

nm

nm

How horrible. I'm so very sorry someone so cruelly compounded your grief. (((hugs)))

Oh, gosh, that's terrible!! We bought our dd a house in her college town and it's in a similar state this summer . . . We hired a handyman to check on the house (come inside, check thermostat and for water leaks, etc.) every week. It's pricey, but worth it to me. We (landlord) are paying that this summer, since we just bought the house and the girls haven't officially moved in yet, but in future summers, I'll suggest the roommates pay for the same service. I also encouraged the handyman to leave a vehicle there anytime he can, to make it look lived in. I also put a timer (under $10) on a lamp near the front windows to come on/off at random (sensible) times and left a radio on pretty loud 24/7 also within hearing of the front door/window. There are "fake TV"s you can buy that emit lights that mimic TV screens. FWIW, I wouldn't blame the landlord. There's only so much you can do as a landlord to protect a vacant property. Vacant = appealing . . . Oh, also, we are going to install a security system when the girls move in in August. You can get ones that you can "take with you" and have no contracts . . . We are going with SimpliSafe but there may be better options & I can't vouch for it since I haven't lived with it yet. Once you get it installed, you can leave it over the summer . . . We will have that for future summers. The only reason we didn't do it already was that I didn't want to deal with potential glitches with the alarm system right after installation on a vacant property. But, once it's all installed properly, you shouldn't expect regular problems. The alarm system will have a very loud alarm as well as the auto-dial to a monitoring center . . . so should provide some reassurance. For $300-500 investment plus 20/mo (optional) monitoring, it seems like a no brainer to me, even with me (landlord) paying for it all. I'd do that even if I was not the landlord, just for my peace of mind.

My dh follows AAHA's (gold standard) Vaccine guidelines. We don't historically have *terrible* parvo in our area, but it's around, for sure. Guidelines call for parvo boosters q2-4 weeks from birth to >= 14 weeks with at least 2 boosters in total, IIRC. (Then another at 1 year of age and q3 years after that.) Our practice schedules boosters q3 weeks from the time we see them until after 14 weeks (so typically 14-16 weeks of age, depending on their age at presentation.) (AAHA says the final dose should be administered between 14 & 16 weeks.) Dh is looking at extending to 18-20 weeks because of these "breaks" in protection he's observed (and his research is showing is happening in other places as well). His research has found that, yes, this is an issue in other areas, too. Researchers have come up with a couple theories on why these pups are getting parvo despite being "fully" immunized (with the best available vaccines). Current theories include that current vaccines are so good that maternal antibodies are stronger than they used to be and therefor those maternal antibodies are lasting longer in the pups, thereby blocking effectiveness of the puppy boosters for longer than they used to. So, if, say maternal antibodies used to "wear out" by 10 weeks and so then the final boosters as 11-14 weeks effectively triggered immunity, but now those maternal antibodies might be "lasting" until 14-16 weeks, so they continue to block the effectiveness of the vaccines until the puppy is "done" with their boosters. If this is the problem, then extending the puppy boosters longer should provide protection. (Although this also means that puppies should be kept isolated from sources of parvo for much longer -- until the longer booster duration is completed, at, say 18-20 weeks.) Other theories would be a new/more virulent strain of parvo, but I don't think there's evidence of that just yet. So, anyway, that's what I know about it. :) If I were getting a puppy now, I'd go ahead and extend parvo boosters (and puppy isolation measures, avoiding dog parks, PetCo, public soil, etc.) through age 18-20 weeks. No guarantees, but that seems safer to me given how deadly parvo is and how safe parvo vaccines are.

FWIW, two dogs have recently gotten parvo . . . They were each clients of our vet hospital and had been fully immunized with high quality vaccines, from the vet. Each was about 5 months old, and had completed all boosters as recommended through 14 weeks of age. Vet care for each was around $1000 or so. Dh's vet hospital contacted the manufacturer, and because they had all their vaccines from the vet per recommendations, the manufacturer reimbursed the clients 100% of the vet care . . . They do similar if a properly cared for pet received preventatives (heart worm meds) and breaks with heart worm or any of the covered intestinal parasites. That sort of guarantee is available through your vet, because the manufacturers provide it . . . If those pets had received care via a parking lot vaccine clinic or bought their products via the internet, no such guarantees are available. ps. dh is contemplating taking parvo vaccines through 18-20 weeks of age due to this new issue . . .

FWIW, the "victim blaming" comments I've read have typically been generated in response to really general talk about what to do differently with your own kids, etc. For instance, the thread here about the police brutality. I'm pretty confident he and his family won't read this board, lol, and those comments were really just "among friends" talking about how we raise our kids. And, FWIW, I was once a victim of an assault, and I definitely have no problem advising my own kids on what to do differently based on my experience. It's not that my inability to scream/fight against a known assailant made the assault my fault. But, having the wherewithal to physically fight or even scream loudly might have made a difference to me, and so I've coached my kids on that particular topic, hoping that being forewarned is akin to being forearmed. I also have them take self defense classes to reinforce that concept. In those classes, girls practice screaming and fighting back -- being loud and clear and assertive. That's not something that came to me -- I froze instead of fighting. In my particular situation, I think that if I'd fought instead of freezing, screamed instead of cried, I might not have been raped. That's not telling myself I did something wrong. It's just telling me that maybe I could have done something differently that might have resulted in a better outcome. Sure, it sucks that bad things happen, and it sucks that I didn't have every tool I could have and didn't think of everything I could have. And, of course, it is also possible that if I'd acted differently, I might have ended up beaten or dead in addition to being raped. Personally, I tend to see my own bad things this way. I look back and try to figure out what went wrong and if there was anything I (or someone else) could have done differently. That *empowers me* because I can feel that I have some *new* *improved* control over my destiny. That's just my way of sorting out dangers. And this "they've learned already" thing *might* work for that person, but does not apply to the conversations I'm talking about, where we're trying to discuss principles and general actions one can take/teach/learn to prevent bad things from happening to us.

I am so sorry this is happening with your dad. A friend's very elderly (90s) mother died in the hospital after a series of similar "mishaps" related to her care. In her case, it really appeared that the medical staff felt like it was "her time" to die and really made no effort to maintain her quality of life or life at all. IMHO, it would be best if you could make sure a family member is with your dad 24/7 while in these types of care settings. I know that can be nearly impossible, but that's what I'd try to do. My dad died due to medical errors in hospital, and so since then, I've simply been 100% committed to making sure I am with my immediate family members whenever they are inpatient anywhere. I have had to fight for that right at times, but I've been successful in insisting . . . by simply telling them that I will be there until/unless they have me physically removed. So far, that's worked for me. My mom is gone, now, too, so next would only be my kids or dh . . . I am quite confident that if I were physically removed from their sides, I'd have our lawyer on the phone immediately, and I wouldn't relent until I or a privately-hired trusted caregiver were there 24/7 to make sure medical errors or simple neglect didn't harm my family member. My experiences with medical care are also one reason I cared for my mom in our home during her Alzheimer's and end-of-life care instead of even considering institutional care. No way, no how, not if I can prevent it. No one will love or look out for your loved one better than someone who LOVES them. ((((hugs))))

Help me understand a bit. I've run into the "You're victim blaming" thing at least twice on these boards, once when I was suggesting various things to teach our kids/friends/women to avoid abusive relationships and then today when various folks were talking about what things we teach our kids to do to minimize their risks in dealign with police officers. And I've certainly seen it plenty of other places, too. I totally agree with the importance of not blaming victims for their attacker's actions. However, where do we distinguish between advocating prudent actions to minimize your risks of being harmed by "bad people" vs. blaming victims? For instance . . . Say I never lock my car doors, and I leave my purse on the seat while I run into various places for errands. Eventually, someone steals my purse while I'm at the playground with my kid. I report this crime. Someone (friend, cop, whoever) is likely to tell me, "Uh, lady, you really shouldn't leave your purse in an unlocked car. That's asking for trouble." Is that victim blaming? To me, no, it's not. It's simply reminding a person that they exposed themselves to unnecessary risk. Likewise, me teaching my kids not to leave valuables in plain view in any vehicle (let alone an unlocked vehicle) isn't victim blaming. It's educating them about "bad people" and how to minimize your risks from said bad people. Another instance . . . Say you plan a visit to a middle eastern country where women are legally and morally required and expected to be covered. Say this place has a known history of sexual violence against women, and that women who don't properly cover themselves are frequently targeted. Is it victim blaming to advise your family members/friends/etc who are traveling there of this elevated risk and the imperative nature of staying covered and/or staying guarded? To me, no, that's simple common sense. It in *no way* excuses the criminals, but it is just prudent to avoid exposing yourself to risk. . . . To me, it crosses from proactive self/others-protection to victim blaming only when you use the "advice" to shift blame away from the attacker, or certainly if used to "beat someone when they are down" if you are directly addressing someone who is already a victim. To tell a rape victim, "You shouldn't have been drinking alone at that party!" is cruel even if it is true. So, the cruelty is wrong. Or, to say, "The rapist isn't really at fault here because she was asking for it the way she dressed." is obviously victim blaming to me. Or to say, "Well, we won't charge the thief with stealing your purse since you left it in plain view." is victim blaming and wrong. To tell the woman whose purse was stolen, "Whoa, you do that all the time? That's really stupid. If you don't want your purse stolen, perhaps you should lock your doors, because otherwise, this is just gonna' keep happening until you relocate to Fantasy Land." -- that, to me, is not victim blaming or cruel, because having your purse stolen isn't (generally) a traumatic event and so as long as the victim isn't traumatized, then telling her like it is just maybe helps her get a clue and take fewer risks next time. To me, the world is full of scary risks. Bears, dogs, rapists, lightning, floods, etc . . . I think learning about and discussing prudent self-protection prevention measures for all these risks is a reasonable thing to discuss and to teach our kids. Anyway, I have zero sympathy for the criminals in any of these examples or in the cases in the news, etc. I think they should all go to jail and be punished. I'm just wondering how we can even talk about these issues without this PC "victim blaming" card preventing us from even discussing prudent self-protection measures.

Maybe you could just do the budget yourself and let dh know how much there is to spend. :) Perhaps set up a separate "spending" account and transfer $x there each month. Dh has access to that account, but not ready access to the other funds. Then, you put the bill/savings/investment funds in a separate account that isn't used for "regular" spending. Dh and I both are super budget averse, lol. If he was into budgeting, I'd be 100% groovy with him putting me on a budget that way. It's not that I don't like the idea of budgeting and planning. . . I just don't like to do it. So, maybe your dh would be cool with that. Just don't make him talk about it or think about it. You can manage everything and give him/both of you a limited account for "spending". If that works for him, then do that and you'll be good. If you use credit cards, then limit "spending" to one card to keep easy track.

I don't know whether filming is more helpful (discourage bad behavior) or harmful (antagonize an out of control aggressor). I've seen enough film clips of abuse being filmed openly that I am not sure it discourages bad behavior. Perhaps those behaving badly feel entitled and above any negative consequences for their actions and are just not dissuaded by being filmed. I'd imagine that the act of filming could go either way -- de-escalating or further escalating conflict. Did the police officer even realize the kid was filming? I watched the boy's video and began watching the 20 min dash cam video (link in the story above), but I had to stop when I heard that poor boy's head crack on the road. I have to think that the police officer who assaulted and maimed that child felt entitled to act as he was acting. The filming of most of his worst actions were on his own vehicle's dash cam, for goodness sake. Seems to me that in this case, that police officer was out of control and malicious in his intent to harm. I didn't notice anything that showed me that the officer realized the boy was filming, but I could have missed it, as I was reading the article at the same time and simply overwhelmed by the violence and tragedy of it all. I don't know that anything this particular boy could have done could have changed the outcome. Even if it had, chances are good that this police officer would have harmed other civilians and/or family members even if this particular child had escaped unscathed because that police officer was obviously really screwed up and/or evil and/or mentally unhinged. Normal people don't do things like this. I wonder how often dash cam (and similar wearable) videos are reviewed internally for police re-training/etc to catch the presumably vast majority of incidents that are not reported by the victims. Agencies need to take responsibility for supervising and controlling their employees to prevent harm, IMHO. I'm just so sad for the victim and his family. What a terrible, horrible thing happened to them.

Of course. But, then again, there are more than a few police officers who are also rapists and wife beaters. I hold all human beings to a high standard. I just know that many fail to meet my standards, even the most basic ones, and so I am in favor of all human beings doing what we reasonably can to protect ourselves from lightning, bears, police officers, teachers, rapists, and frat boys. My standards have no impact whatsoever on predatory and criminal behaviors of others. So, my daughter gets pepper spray and rape whistles to take to college. My kids all get lectures about safe behaviors. When we hike in the Rockies, we carry bear spray. When I run in areas where I know bad guys and/or loose dogs might travel, I carry pepper spray. When we were in Costa Rica, we left our iPhones at home and we carried our cash and ID in money belts under our shirts. And we didn't go on the beach after dark. We do what we can to improve our odds against bears, dogs, rapists, thieves, abusive partners, and rogue cops. etc.

Indeed, I do. I would have given different advice, but that does not change the fact that the violent police officer committed a terrible crime against the boy. The boy did nothing wrong. The police officer is totally in the wrong. But the boy has to deal with a lifetime of recovery from brain injury. Not his fault, but his suffering. Some police officers will react aggressively to respectful and legal resistance to their unlawful demands. Some police officers are bears. I don't poke bears. Even if the poke is legal and right and justified, I might get eaten by the bear.

Not aiming this at anyone in particular, but I think we have to re-think the urge to dismiss proactive self-protection steps as "victim blaming" Yes, I see that abusive spouses, rapist-dates, rabid police officers, etc are each 100% responsible for their actions. They are human beings, and they are culpable for their acts. Nonetheless, there are things that the rest of us can and should do to protect ourselves from harm. If it is thunder and lightning out, we don't go for a walk on a golf course with a metal umbrella. That'd be stupid. If there are petty thieves known to frequent a foreign city we are visiting, we don't flash (or even bring) our expensive electronics, and we keep our cash and cards secured in a "money belt" if we have to carry them at all. If there are bears in the woods, we don't sleep with steak in our sleeping bags. If there are rapists at a party on the prowl for drunken women, we don't get drunk without a dependable safe-person there with us to keep us safe. If we know that when someone abusively hits or otherwise abuses someone they love, there is a very high likelihood of escalation and continued violence, thus we should get away from the hitter at the first sign of abuse, not after years of being progressively destroyed. If there are rapists waiting to slip a drug into an unaware female's drink, then we don't leave our open cups vulnerable to him. Now, sometimes a lightning storm suddenly erupts when someone is in the middle of a large field and they get struck by lightning. Sometimes, abusive behavior is so stealthy and the victim so unprepared that the victim is "trapped" for a long time. Sometimes, a rapist is someone you had no reason to distrust and no reasonable way to know to be on guard against. Sometimes the worst happens. It's fine and well and good to make clear that the aggressors/criminals are 100% responsible for their acts. That does NOT mean that intelligent, caring, compassionate people won't rightfully encourage good people to make choices that can reduce their chances of being victimized. Wearing a money belt when we travel in high crime areas doesn't make the thieves less responsible when they manage to steal somebody's purse (or money belt). Avoiding late night walking alone in a sketchy part of town doesn't make the criminals less responsible for their bad acts. Etc. But these sorts of sensible precautions can, indeed, reduce the likelihood of a particular person being eaten by a bear or victimized by a criminal.

Well, these ones were more than what you usually see, as they were on top of their clothes, so fully visible and obvious, not the ones hidden under their uniforms. Maybe flak jacket is more appropriate term. I don't know. It was more like what I've seen when the DC-Metro area was on virtual lockdown during the sniper shooting era and also the days around 9-11. (This is an area of NoVA with a *lot* of federal installations.) Not what you usually see in local police wear. There happened to be a large sporting event -- seemed like it was related to law enforcement somehow -- with some international attendees at the same (large) shopping area that day; that's the only logical explanation I can guess at why they'd be dressed that way.

Nope, not that dh or I are aware of. (And I'm pretty sure we'd know.)

I teach my kids to comply, safely, respectfully and quietly. I would not encourage anyone to argue or "assert their rights" unless they are in immediate physical danger (i.e., an officer attempting to assault or coerce them, in which case, I'm a "fight till you die" advocate, personally") My white son had a very scary interaction with a gaggle of 4-5 policemen a year ago. We had just finished the memorial service for my mother in a wealthy (but diverse) community in northern VA. He was riding the 3 hours back to our home in WV with my brother (in a rental car, not from the area) . . . So, anyway, after our family meal at a nice restaurant in an upscale shopping area, my son had changed into casual clothes for the ride with my brother back home. So, he was supposed to meet my brother in the parking garage. My son was there, looking for my brother, and my brother had gotten confused and driven in the wrong area, so my son ended up "wandering around in the garage" for 10 min or so looking for my brother. Meanwhile, someone had called 911 to report a "suspicious teen" wandering the garage. 4-5 police ultimately arrived in a group, wearing bullet proof vests, and, asked my son what he was doing and for ID, made him empty his pockets, answer repeated and extensive questions, etc. My son answered honestly and provided his ID. Most of the police left soon thereafter, but one waited a few yards away, several more minutes, watching my son until my brother arrived (still in funeral wear and in a nice car) and then my son left. My son was very frightened, but thankfully, he followed my repeated lifelong instructions to suck up to police, and he was not injured or arrested. I shudder to think how badly that situation could have gone if my son had put on his "sassy teen" persona and "stuck up for his rights" or if he had been black or latino . . . My perspective is that some risks are not worth taking. A one-on-one interaction with police is NOT the time to assert your dignity, privacy rights, etc. Just suck it up and comply. Later, feel free to file a complaint or advocate for better policing . . . But not while you are vulnerable and your "opponent" has a gun and taser and the "thin blue line" protecting his ability to injure or kill you . . .

My guess is Meloxicam. It's human, available generic, and it's great, so it's a great option for *big dogs* but only for big dogs, unfortunately. The pill size (for humans) is such that 1/2 tab is about right for a 75# dog. There are not any smaller tabs available, and the liquid form (for human kids) would be great EXCEPT it has XYLITOL (artificial sweetener) which is very toxic to dogs. There aren't any good cheap NSAID options for smaller pets. Generic Rimadyl is the "cheap" option, and it's not cheap at all compared to human drugs. Unfortunately, the drug companies that manufacture dog/cat meds have everyone over a barrel.

I just have to say that if you are really in VA, and your dog isn't on HWP, I bet dollars to donuts s/he has parasites. Fecal screens are not 100%, so negative fecal exams do NOT mean she doesn't have parasites. Intestinal parasites are in the soil (everywhere) and dogs lick their feet, etc. They get parasites over and over. They also are mostly chronically infested, with new infestations arising from hidden deep infections throughout their life. A monthly HWP will dramatically reduce their parasite load. HWP is cheap and easy to administer.

ps. I have to correct myself. Dh tells me that, no, the generic Rimadyl is NOT that cheap. Unfortunately, it is more like $1-2 a day or so. Drug companies suck eggs.

Sounds like a good vet. Glucosamine is cheap, safe, and can help many dogs. There is nothing you can do for your cat if the dental disease is significant, which it surely is. If you had a couple rotten teeth, a dozen deep cavities, and severe periodontal disease, deep infected pockets of pus and swollen soft tissues, and maybe a broken tooth or two . . . would there be anything you could do short of a dentist to get a healthy mouth? Nope. The *typical* pet's mouth that is at least 4-6 years old has really bad dental disease if they aren't getting regular home care and professional care. You need to get the disease out (broken and rotten and loose teeth and the sources of infection) and *then* home care (tooth brushing, check YouTube) can help a great deal to slow down the need for the next professional cleaning. Do *not* initiate brushing before the mouth is cleaned up. Just imagine how painful that would be . . . And, BTW, the procedure that vets typically get the most glowing thanks for is dental care. "He's a puppy again!" "I thought he was ready to die, but he is happy and friendly again!" etc. That dental disease is *painful* and getting it fixed makes a *world* of difference.

There's no way on God's Green Earth that Sentinel + Rimadyl should run you 150/mo. I am *guessing* you were being offered 3-6 months worth of the meds. Both these meds are widely used and have fairly standard pricing. No vet could stay in business charging that much, for sure, I guarantee it. So, either you misunderstood what she was offering you (number of months/doses) or someone got their pricing *really* screwed up. Sometimes inventory pricing gets crazy accidentally. For instance, our inventory pricing system bases the client price on what *we* pay plus a standard mark up (that varies with type of drug). So, say the client cost is supposed to be 2x our cost. We pay $1 per pill, so your price is supposed to be $2 per pill. But we take in a bottle of 100 pills for $100 and then the inventory item is set up wrong and thinks we just paid $100 per pill, so suddenly, the client cost is $200 per pill. You pick up your prescription, and it's suddenly $5000, lol. Obviously, if the error is this drastic, then the receptionist or client will surely notice it and get it fixed at that time. However, if the error is milder and/or it's a brand new (or exceptionally stupid) receptionist, then the staff person might not catch the error. Given the *very high* likelihood that you either misunderstood or there was an inventory pricing glitch, I'd give a call to the vet office, and tell them what you wrote here, and I bet dollars to donuts that you'll find that you were being offered 6 months of meds, not one month. (Sentinel comes in 6 month packs and maybe 12 month packs. I don't think it is even distributed in 3 month packs although some preventive meds are. Although some hospitals will "break" a box selling one month at a time, that is not routine in most practices unless you are dosing a growing puppy.) Sentinel should be maybe 20/mo (+/- 50% or so) and Rimadyl *should* be fairly cheap since there is a generic of it available. I mean, like maybe 25/mo max -- really like 10/mo if you are buying 3 months at a time or so. The generic Rimadyl is the *cheap* option for arthritis care. I agree with buying from your vet for multiple reasons (biased though, dh is a vet). BUT, 150/mo for those two meds is definitely insane. Personally, I'd google up what the prices are on PetMeds and/or Foster&Smith. Then expect to pay between that and maybe 50% more at your vet. If the prices are truly multiples more than what the costs are at the online retailers, something is bonkers.

My dc just took the classes for that one year. No sibling discounts. :) The next year, my eldest would have been ready for AP but didn't want/need that sort of challenge that year, and kid#2 was sort of between levels and/or just was too much of an attitude problem for Ray to want him in another of his group classes (Ray didn't say that, but that's what I guessed, because he had a terrible attitude that year and *I* wouldn't have wanted him in my group class either, lol, so Ray offered to privately tutor/teach him), so anyway, we didn't use him the next year. We had a rocky year that year in several regards (my mom's health, cranky teen, etc.), so I don't really feel like I can give a valid assessment of the classes, and it was a while back, but I can recall enough that I definitely think Ray was a good guy and a good teacher. Another parent here has been using Ray for Spanish for multiple years now (on my recommendation) and has sent me annual "thank you PMs" saying how great it's been for both her dc. :) Anyway, I still think Ray was very kind, skilled, and very helpful. I wouldn't hesitate to give him a try and see if it's a good fit. I didn't get a lot of grades/feedback from Ray, so if you want or need that, be sure to ask about it ahead of time and come up with a system for monitoring your kid's participation/compliance. I am confident he'd be willing to work out a system if one requested it. My baby girl has one more year of Galore Park Spanish Prep (level 3) for next year, and then I will be back in this same boat with her, and I might well have Ray teach her when she's done with Galore Park, but who knows, because by then she'll be my only at-home kiddo and so I might just drive her to the local college for classes, since I'll have the time to drive her around that I didn't have when I had 3 schooling kids at home. (sniff . . . I'll miss that grumpy teen when he goes away to college next year . . . if I don't kill him before then, lol.)

Definitely *common* with crappy toilets, but NOT normal. Replace the toilets. End of discussion. Period. You will be *SO* relieved. One overflow by a visiting kid or a demented old lady who walks away after flushing and doesn't realize what happened can cost *thousands* in damage to floors, cabinetry, etc, let alone the disgust factor of having SHIT contaminate acres of possessions. BTDT, and replaced every last toilet, and haven't had a single overflow or near-miss since then. Happy days! Just do it. DO IT. Now.