A.D.
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by A.D.
-
-
We were in Fredericton, NB yesterday and I bought $20 worth of gas (about 15 liters) with my bank card.
This transaction has just about drained my account. It is showing up currently as $154 and change.
The transaction is still processing, and could be "processing" for days. I can't dispute the charge until it posts. :glare:
Dh and I have agreed that from now on when we go to Canada we will fill up prior to leaving and pay only in cash if we need fuel while there.
The amount is higher than what normally happens with holds in the U.S., but yes, this practice is somewhat common in both the U.S. and Canada. You likely haven't been charged the $154+, but rather it is a hold against the account. The actual amount will go through at some point, and the rest of the hold will be released.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/BetterBanking/HosedAtTheGasPumpByYourDebitCard.aspx
BTW, for those who are suggesting this is due to a "card skimmer" device, typically the card information is stolen and used at other locations, not where the information was lifted.
-
Thank you for your reply. My son had a fantastic first season in Little League (which just finished for us, we were minor league champs in our small town, and lost in the Tournament of Champions last night). His coaches were just outstanding and I want to do something, but I just don't know what and we're a little tight on funds right now.
A thank you card with a note from your son (and perhaps from you as well) would mean a lot. I just received one this week from one of my players who will be moving this summer, and it turned a crummy day into a nice one.
-
Ah, a subject near and dear to my heart.
First, to the OP, I think your $20 contribution is fine.
I have been coaching basketball for 20+ years, and in that time I have received a wide range of end of the year gifts. My wife and sons joke about the stash of restaurant gift cards I always seem to have that have been given to me by my teams and other teams in my organization (I am the director of a program with 800 or so players).
As much as I always appreciate the gift cards, what I really treasure are the team pictures, signed basketballs, and other trinkets. Although my teams have won many trophies over the years, I only display the team pictures and other gifts from my players. I have also received personal notes from players that I will cherish forever. Thinking back, the best gift I have ever received from a team was a small photo album of game pictures taken during the course of the season. The father who took the photos even added little captions throughout the album which had me chuckling for hours.
I took this spring off from coaching, and my co-coach did an amazing job with the boys in my absence. The team mom called me to ask for a gift suggestion for him, and I was finally able to share my views on gifts (my co-coach thinks the same as I do), so we settled on the parents making a donation to the V Foundation instead of buying him a gift card. When they presented the certificate for the donation to him at the team party, he said it was the best gift a team had ever given him.
-
Oh, absolutely. I have an aunt who has cerebral palsy and is severely mentally retarded (I don't know what her diagnosis would have been if she'd been diagnosed today). My grandmother's doctor told her she should tell people the baby had died at birth, put her in an institution, and never see her again. It's just horrifying that that was pretty much standard practice at the time.
My brother was born in 1963 with the same condition. A county nurse showed up at our house (I wasn't born yet) a few weeks later to take him away to a state facility. My mom declined, and was told that the nurse would be returning later with the sheriff to get him. Supposedly my mom walked the lady to the door by her arm, and was yelling something about somebody getting her shotgun for her. The county nurse didn't return, and my folks raised my brother the best they could. They also had some epic battles with the school system over what it was supposed to be providing for special education students.
-
I personally have a problem with people being repulsed by youngish females getting married but fine with 13 year olds having unmarried sex. Is it that they shouldn't be tied down to commitments (just the fun of a boyfriend), the idea that such women will immediately start having lots of kids and not be educated, the idea that "those men" don't really love their wives because "their culture" doesn't value women, or what? Those are, to me, separate issues, some of which may be inaccurate.
Incidentally, not ALL males who marry young females mistreat them. I am not a particular advocate for young marriage, but I think it's worth pointing out. There was a very touching moment in this interview on the Diane Rehm show on Teen Mothers in the Developing World from 2004 where Dr. Lubana Ahmed, from Bangladesh, discusses how her father treated her mother, who was married at a very young age. He ensured she finished high school. She discusses the importance of women in society, including crediting her paternal grandmother for instilling in her father this commitment to education.
1.) I don't believe you will find many people arguing that sex at age 13, even when consensual, is a good thing.
2.) It is reasonable to say that in the cultures that are practicing arranged marriages at these young ages, that yes, the education for women in general is not valued. Are there exceptions to this? Certainly, but they appear to be rare based on the opportunities for education given to women in those areas.
3.) Do some of these men love, or learn to love, their wives? Sure. That still doesn't justify or excuse arranged marriages for 12-year old girls. Just because some of the men don't mistreat their wives seems like a flimsy reason to try and defend the practice.
-
I don't know if she made mistakes or not, to answer a pp's question. I wasn't there! Being a human being and fallible, I'm SURE there were mistakes made. What it boils down to is this: This mother WANTED a homebirth...desperately. Why? I don't know. Karen has safely delivered 40-50 breech babies. I'd say that qualifies her to do it. Should she have been practicing in VA w/out a license. No. But out of the goodness of her heart, and not so much the good sense in her head, she decided to help this woman have the homebirth she wanted when nobody else would help her. Karen did not kill this baby. Period. Tragically, this baby died. Some babies do. At home, in hospitals, in birth centers, etc. A pp said the sentence is laughable. Yes, it is. It is laughable b/c she SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO PLEA TO ANYTHING BUT PRACTICING W/OUT A LICENSE! :angry:
This baby died because a combination of arrogance and ignorance caused this mother and this "professional" to attempt a birth that they had been advised was not suitable for a homebirth.
If Karen was a decent human being, which I sincerely believe she is not, she would not have agreed to participate in a homebirth like this just because the mother wanted it. She would not have placed some bizarre infatuation with the birth process over the life of the child.
But she did, and sadly the baby died, and she is being let off with a slap on the wrist. A normal person would probably be affected by this for the rest of their life, but I have no doubt Karen will be back to putting herself above the law in no time.
-
I have no problem saying that I am very disappointed in the plea agreement. This woman's arrogance and illegal behavior contributed to the death of an innocent child, and the sentence she has received is laughable.
-
I have no problem saying that I am very disappointed in the plea agreement. This woman's arrogance and illegal behavior contributed to the death of an innocent child, and the sentence she has received is laughable.
-
Based on your post, this sounds like a competitive team, not a rec team. If there were no guarantees regarding minimum playing team, then you really have no standing to make a legitimate complaint. If the two girls are the weakest players on the team, then it doesn't sound like they are being treated unfairly, but rather they are not being treated the way you want. With this being a competitive league, I would argue that playing better players less in favor of weaker players is not fair to the team.
Playing more does not make a player better. It is a piece of the puzzle, but the foundation of improvement comes from practice and skill development. If your daughter wants to play more, then she will need to put in the work meet her goals. You said that your daughter is not passionate enough to put in the additional work she may need, and playing less is a natural consequence of that decision.
-
:iagree: 100%
I read the transcript of the White House/reporter questions and oh my goodness, the man couldn't give a straight answer to save his life. I do not believe for a second that all of this is on the up and up...not at all. There are too many holes.
Please list he "holes" you discovered from the transcript.
:lurk5:
-
I have no problem saying that I am glad he is dead. While I did not celebrate in the street when I learned of his death, I did feel a sense of satisfaction that a man who brought pain and suffering to many, and who was still a threat to our nation, met his end. He chose the path that led to his death, and I simply cannot find any reason to have feel any compassion for this monster. There was nothing good about OBL, and the world is a better place without him.
Samuel L. Jackson sums it up well for me in "A Time to Kill".
-
LOL! Well I'm certainly not calling all my friends or posting on FB my thoughts or trying to convince anyone on here to stockpile food and guns. :tongue_smilie: And I did come across a reference to NWO/Illuminati in one rant about this :lol: But I don't think it's total conspiracy theorizing to sit back and wait to see the real photos etc. It just seems a bit too fast for DNA confirmation, that helicopter seemed to get Osama's body to the Indian Ocean in record time---and other kind of weird facts about this. But I'm sure our Govt is totally trustworthy....
1.) Did you do any research on your DNA question? You are aware that an identity match can be done in a matter of hours with a large enough sample of DNA, right?
2.) Although we believe bin Laden was buried in the Indian Ocean, that has not been confirmed. However, some brief research would show you that it would not take record time for a helicopter to reach the Indian Ocean from Pakistan. The distance from Kabul, Afghanistan to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is roughly 2800 miles (farther than bin Laden's body would need to be flown), and could be reached by a US military helicopter in roughly 14 hours. Again, that is using a much longer distance than what was needed.
None of the above are weird facts, and over the years it has become painfully obvious that the worst offenders among the conspiracy theorists are simply ignorant. Although I am sure you can find a random Iragi to convince you otherwise.
-
She chose an unlicensed midwife because licensed midwives cannot carry oxygen. This wasn't someone off the street, it was an experienced midwife.
I will again bring up my friend in California. She had a c-section with her first baby. She had two vbacs. Her hospital and doctor (not the same as for the middle two births) insisted that a vbac was too risky. She was over 35 and had previously had a csection. That was end of story as far as the doctor was concerned. When she took in her birth plan he *laughed at her*, tossed it at her and said "this is nothing but a wish list, I'm not entertaining this." She lived too far from a midwife, so she chose an unassisted birth at home instead. That is a case of the doctor and hospital endangering women and babies unnecessarily. It wasn't her arrogance that caused that situation. I'm sure the doctor might say she placed her own desire for a birth at home over having a c-section.
And that has ZERO to do with this situation. This was clearly a high risk birth, and she was advised by her birthing center to NOT do a home delivery. She then searched until she found a midwife willing to engage in a risky delivery.
This mother and midwife sacrificed that child, and yes, the chances of a safe delivery in THIS case would have been in the hands of a qualified OB and a hospital. A c-section isn't the end of the world.
-
Statistics prove that homebirth is safer. Your average first-time-mom-to-be has little way of assessing her true risk when the medical profession wants to speed up nearly all deliveries. It's completely unfair to this mother to assume she was placing her desire for a homebirth of the safety of her baby. Unnecessary interventions (used *regularly* by most hospitals in the US) *also* have risk factors that sometimes end with a still-born baby.
From the WP article:
"According to John Kenneth Zwerling, Carr’s attorney, BirthCare advised the mother that the case was too complicated for a home delivery, but she preferred to deliver at home. "
She was informed that the birth was too risky for home delivery, and frankly, anyone with an ounce of common sense would have known that. She then went digging around to find an (unlicensed) midwife willing to do the delivery.
This wasn't a seemingly normal birth with unforeseen complications. She and the midwife knew they were taking unnecessary risks with the life of the child, and let their arrogance overrule their common sense.
-
In my experience, if you want an intervention free birth at a hospital you have to choose your OB and your hospital VERY carefully and then pray you get a LD nurse who is ok with intervention free births. Once you are actually at the hospital laboring there are few choices left to you. The Dr or nurse says "I am going to do X", "We are going to do Y" and unless you fight back and are willing to argue, it happens and happens fast, within seconds of the statment. Statisticly, interventions of almost all types lead to increases in risk for the mother and the child.
The USA is NOT a leader in preventing maternal deaths or infant deaths. I used to have statistics on both, but can currently only find WHOs statistics for maternal deaths http://www.who.int/making_pregnancy_safer/topics/maternal_mortality/en/index.html
I'd like to point out the blue listed countries all use midwives at a significantly higher level (about 50% vs 8%) than the US. There are obviously MANY factors involved in the US's lower statistics, but I think the type of care is extremely significant.
I'm sure that this is at least part of the reason this "high risk" mother chose to labor at home. It is heartbreaking that a women's child died under the care of a midwife. It is also sad that the midwife had to be illegal to give quality care to her patient. I hope for healing for all involved.
Choosing a midwife in this situation is simply ignorant. The mother placed her "desperate" desire for a homebirth over the life of her child.
The midwife CHOSE not to be licensed in VA. She then combined that with participating in a delivery that would have been better served in a hospital. Hopefully the criminal justice system doesn't let her off lightly. She should pay, and pay dearly, for her arrogance.
-
:iagree:
There is no way to know what would have happened at a hospital....babies died there too unfortunately. A tragedy no matter where it occurs.
Well then the midwife will have to suffer the repercussions for choosing not to have a license. Perhaps this will encourage others who choose to knowingly break the law to not participate in high risk births that would better served by someone else.
Frankly, I hope she receives a harsh sentence.
I only wish there was a way to charge the mother for valuing her birth experience over the life of her child.
-
Jesus was life. Everything he touched, even dead people, came to life. Fermentation is a death process. Personally, I don't believe he ever drank fermented wine. But that is something we won't know for sure until heaven. So, its not something I usually go into, but you asked.
Really? So I assume you believe he was a vegetarian as well?
BTW, based on the culture at the time, there is no reasonable reason to believe that Jesus did not drink fermented wine, contrary to the fairy tales fabricated by certain groups.
-
As their mother, you should have access to their bodies at all times.
No, not when we are talking about preteens, teens, and young adults. If you do not understand why what you stated here sounds creepy/inappropriate, then I simply am at a loss.
-
If it were my boy, it would be NO! I've seen this happen around here. The girls go out for the wrestling team and some of them are very, very good. Then they claim "molestation" because he accidently touched something. Sorry ladies, there is no way to do that sport and not end up with contact between him and your lady parts. Can't be done. The schools always, always, always come down on the boys.
Faith
I am quite willing to wager that you cannot provide a single example of this actually happening outside of your own mind.
-
Here, in a still very racist part of the country (mostly the small rural country I was born in - not town we live in now) - IME and I've lived here my whole life - most of the times I hear that word are in rap songs. Seriously. Not in public and not with my own racist relatives.
When they start making them refrain from saying it in rap music then I'll worry about it being in Huck Finny and Tom Sawyer.
A publishing company is choosing to edit the word. No one is making them do so.
FTR, many of those who are uncomfortable with the word being used in Huck Finn also are against the use of that word in music and comedy as well.
I can also tell you that when you have been called that word in a hateful manner, that you can become more sensitive to its use around your children.
-
The irony is that the other side owned people also and continued to do so until after the war.
Please cite again specifically where slavery was still in practice in the North until after the Civil War. It was not in New Hampshire, and that was your earlier example.
But what were the issues of slavery related to? Economy. What were the issues of economy related to? Taxes and Tariffs. It's all interconnected...that's why I think it should have been multiple choice or "all of the above"Yet tariffs and taxes were not listed as by the states as the reasons why they wished to secede. Odd.
-
Yes, but see the difference is...YOU have no problem trotting out all the ills of the south, but heaven forbid anyone point out ANY good thing of the south or ANY bad thing of the north...then, it's suddenly "an agenda" or "defense" or "minimizing".
Um, I think I quite clearly stated the north had its own issues, particuarly in regards to race, but they were significantly lesser than those in the South. I do not see why Grant being a slave owner at some point somehow makes the South's sins any less grave.
You also pointed out nothing good about the south, you just tried to minimize the issues or deflect (ie new Hampshire). There is nothing positive to say about slavery or race relations in the pre- or post-civil war southern states. There just isn't.
No, honey, it's called giving a more balanced and rounded out picture. BTW, most people do not know about the NY riots. Schools generally only teach "South bad, North good". I went to schools all over this country and nowhere did they ever discuss the integrity of any southern general, merely that Lee existed. They only touted how wonderful Lincoln (who had his own racist issues) and Grant were..."they freed the slaves"...that was the extent of our "civil war history" in school.Your memories of Civil War history as taught in school may or may not be accurate. In the early elementary grades, a simplistic view of the war as a whole does not bother me, as I can't come up with a good reason to justify one side openly fighting to support keep slavery as being morally equivalent to the other. I know in my high school (in a border state) both sides were addressed, but in the end, I support teaching that keeping others as slaves is morally wrong. I am whacky like that.
Most of what I learned, was learned by reading, both sides. I've taught Civil War history, have learned a lot from genealogical research (have had southern family that fought on both sides). When teaching, a group of kids from both sides of the Mason/Dixon, I taught them from both sides. We discussed ALL the issues at play. We discussed the various types of people that were involved and what their various reasonings were. I never permitted idealising either side nor demonising either side.
Both sides? Did you teach that the articles of seccession specifically cited slavery as a reason for breaking from the Union? Did you trot out misinformation about emancipation in the north not occurring until after the war?
When you use isolated examples of a the wife of the Confederate President allegedly treating a black child as a member of the family, yes, you are idealising. When you cite the words of a racist Union general as being equivalent to the racism that kept blacks in bondage, you are idealising.
The southern leadership, note I am not saying a word about the people in general, supported forming a new nation so that they could hold other human beings in bondage. They fought for years beforehand not for states rights, but rather to force other states to inflict their way of life on their residents. The same leadership supported the enslavement of free northern blacks when encountered in northern states during the war.
Both sides committed atrocities before the war, but one side was fully aligned with trampling the rights and destroying the lives of African Americans under the guise of "states' rights". There is simply no excuse for that.
-
There is defending and there is pointing out facts. If you are against pointing out even positive facts, then all you are trying to do is what the public school text books have taught: "South, bad, evil people...destroy them all...North, good, love and tolerate everyone, praise them as though they are God's own army!" Nope, sorry, but the situation was never that black and white.
When it came to the treatment of African Americans, the South was evil. The North was by no means perfect, and had its own issues with racism (ex. the draft riots in New York), but you are clearly trying to minimize the evils of the institution of slavery when you trot out Mrs. Davis allegedly treating a black child like an actual human beimng (the fact that is noteworthy should be a hint), or try to excuse lee for fighting to keep slavery intact because he freed his own slaves. Grant was by no means a hero, and I have never seen him treated as such in any serious hsitorical works. You keep going on about the misinformation taught in northern public schools (which was rampant), yet I find the tales of "The War of Northern Aggression" and the outright lies trotted out about how the freedom fighters in the south were downtrodden by the northern industrialists much more disturbing, especially considering that line of thought was used time and time again to defend segregation.
Apparently you don't agree with me that there were the good, bad, and ugly on all sides. Every war has more than just the two sides. In some cases, it has three or four. The PURPOSE of pointing out the good and bad of BOTH sides, is to give a more accurate view of ALL people involved...not just the powers-that-be locked in a arm wrestling match. There were many more people involved than just Grant/Lee and Davis/Lincoln. Tunnel vision doesn't help anyone in UNDERSTANDING on either side. THAT was my point ;) I don't white wash either side. I don't deny the evils of slavery. I don't exaggerate slavery to involve every person in the south either. I don't deny that there were good people in the north, but I don't exaggerate to make everyone in the north or that fought for the north to be some peace making abolitionist either. (oh, and Lincoln wanted more than "to hold the Union together"...it wasn't quite that simplistic)Oddly enough, even in northern public schools, Lee, Jackson, and many other Confederate leaders were often admired for being gentleman and honorable. They really weren't, but alas, history often takes short cuts.
You do deny the evils of slavery when you try to claim that whites and blacks had a harmonious relationship in the South, which your "handshake" claim certainly implied.
I stated Lincoln's primary goal was to hold the Union together. Of course there was more to it than that, which is why I said "primary". It is also proven that the southern states primary interest was protecting slavery. Their own documents, and the actions of those states for the next 100+ years, confirms that as well.
-
And many of us don't. Many of despise the institution of slavery. But we don't white wash the North or Lincoln either.
Trying to defend the ignorance that kept millions in bondage by pointing out that new hampshire banned slavery last (which isn't really accurate) accomplishes what exactly?
Why does it matter if Lee freed his slaves, if he fought for a nation built around the purpose of keeping all others enslaved? Why did he allow free blacks in Pennsylvania to be pulled back into bondage when he invaded Pennsylvania for the Gettysburg campaign?
Does Grant owning slaves prior to the war somehow absolve everyone in the south? If so, why?
Also, a war can be fought with both sides having different reasons for the conflict. Lincoln wanted to hold the Union together, with slavery being a secondary issue. The Confederates States, based on their seccession documents, clearly saw slavery as a primary issue.
Delicate question - church volunteers
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
100% correct. In addition, I wouldn't expect abusers to always be truthful after the fact.