Page 2 of 56
Posted on October 17 at 12:55 p.m.
I recommend knife training as an alternative.
"But to learn about them is to acknowledge all the infuriating ways we’re vulnerable to attack."
Starshine, there's no need to feel that way because you're a woman. I mean, I get that women are the physically weaker sex, normally, but ANYONE can be attacked for cash, items to pawn/sell, or just because the attacker is (literally) crazy.
per dou4now: "...mentally prepared to take a life in defense of my own."
It may be easier for some to modify that thought to "mentally prepared to defend your body", in considering it's not necessary to consider the use of (potentially) "lethal force" as lethal. For example, I've known of police trained to shoot "to stop", not "to kill". On the surface that may seem semantic, but I think some will see it as a significant difference. [Also, if it came to a court appearance, the desire "to stop" is probably favorable to say in front of a judge/jury, regardless of who the predator and defender were in the situation.]
Overall, however, I'm in accordance with HGWMV and dou4now regarding "situational awareness". And despite all of his axe-griding, Sealion also poetically said, "Vigilance is essential for all human animals to survive in what will always be a wild woolly world."
On Shopping for Stun Guns
Posted on October 8 at 11:49 a.m.
From the "I said it before, I'll say it again" category:
I think that we (the government) prefer to import foreign oil, so that whatever reserves we sit upon will be the last usable reserves. As the author said, "Oil makes transportation fuels," and those fuels are used for moving war machines: Naval vessels, jets, tanks, and troop carriers.
The government can (and has) been blowing smoke about dependence on foreign oil since at least the Nixon administration, and most of us aren't going to be concerned until there's no oil (fuel) left. And by then, I doubt that the last of it will be available to the public, but rather to the military.
On An Energetic Discussion About Energy
Posted on October 3 at 12:47 p.m.
"I guess for some of you, the author and his family are....(don't say it)... THORNS in your side."
Would that make them pricks?
On Bleeding from Within
Posted on October 3 at 12:01 p.m.
"...why aren't the 53% of people polled who are AGAINST Obamacare given the same courtesy."
1) It's unclear to what "courtesy" you are referring. (Possibly, the proclaiming of a "mandate", from the previous half of the sentence?)
2) I think that is a false equivalency--saying that 53% of the voting populace = 53% of "people polled". Also, do you have a source for these numbers?
"...before medical staff can diagnose something I'm sure to seek a second opinion on anyway (due my distrust of government efficiency over many numerous experiences in the past.)"
How does a medical diagnosis depend on the efficiency of the government, and not the capability of the doctor--and/or the trust/faith in that doctor?
On The Cornered Canine
Posted on September 19 at 11:52 a.m.
Depends....Am I an independent casino contractor?
On Putin Says …
Posted on September 19 at 8:16 a.m.
The really saddening thing to me, is that we waste so much time worrying about who gets elected to the Office of President, but hardly bother at all to investigate what jackasses go to Congress...at least, it certainly appears that way.
Sure, the Executive office is one person as a third of the Federal government, but that's one against many, that represent the Legislative Branch.
On Do We Really Want Hillary or Another Bush Presidency in 2016?
Posted on September 11 at 1:34 p.m.
A good point, which brings in the culpability of the human-owner element....
Also, there may be false data, in the form of dogs described as "pit bulls", while not actually being one. For example, the Argentine Dogo is easily mistaken for an APBT. And then, there are mixes/mutts....
On Dog Bite Dangers
Posted on September 6 at 3:01 p.m.
The very existence of the "breed" of pit bull is why they tend towards aggressiveness--although originally for animals, and not humans.
For the record, I am speaking specifically of the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), although the Staffordshire Terrier and American-Staffordshire Terrier breeds are very similar, to nearly be considered the same, IMO.
APBT's were crosses between terriers lines (for tenacity), and bully-breeds, which are descended of mastiff lines (for strength/toughness). Dogs that were aggessive to other dogs were good for fighting, but ones that bit handlers were culled (killed), which was "natural selection" for dogs which would not attack people.
April 2013, I lost my 13 y/o female, red-nosed APBT, and she only ever showed aggressive/protective traits when strange dogs would approach us--and that one time that one of my friends dogs decided to snap at her first! Furthermore, she showed traits of abuse when I got her, and would cower from stick-like objects (mop, broom, pool cue, etc.) but never snapped at anything out of fear, and I got her at about 1-1/2 to 2 years old.
Currently, I am housing another, male APBT who is male-animal aggressive, and will ignore bitches while immediately wanting to "scratch" (dog-fighting term--look it up) against other males. He was raised with his parents, and sometime around turning 2 years old (no longer a *puppy*, but a *dog*), he could no longer be kept with his father. He would play with the mother all day, but would move to attack his father if given the chance--possibly a dominance issue, but due to pit bull traits, it's a fight....In fact, I had to personally separate the two once (I mistakenly did not get a sliding door closed completely), and not once was I concerned about being bitten while wrestling with them both! I would not say the same about other breeds. [Pit bulls place extreme focus on the 'opponent', while other breeds may perceive handling during an altercation as a threat, and bite by reflex.]
Oddly enough, the father dog is much like my red-nosed girl was--he doesn't race to attack other dogs, but will not stand for being attacked. A couple of family-history notes on the dog I have now: 1) the grandfather was reportedly (hearsay) a fighting dog in Alabama, and 2) one of his sisters from his litter has also attacked and killed another dog. Oh, and 3) the time I had to separate him from his father, the mother kept jumping in to grab the father's collar, and was trying to yank him back!
I do greatly believe in "nurture over nature" (environment vs. heredity) when it comes to most dogs, but not so much with pit bulls. However, I stand with my previous assertion that no person should ever *assume* that a dog (of ANY breed) is 100% safe.
Posted on September 6 at 2:24 p.m.
I believe that you are allowing your personal feelings (prejudice) to cloud your comprehension--you are attacking the author of the letter, and essentially defending the landlord where you do not need to do so.
"Now your landlord returns excess rent, your deposit and pays you a relocation fee and you still think you've been swindled."
"After the fire, the tenant realized his belongings would not be replaced, and was upset that the landlord would not replace the belongings or provide additional assistance, so he hired a lawyer".
"The landlord should return the deposit and the prorated rent that was prepaid, but the $1000 for assistance was just an extorted payoff to get the guy's lawyer out of his hair. The landlord had no obligation to pay that money. There is a sense of entitlement from this tenant that can't be denied."
"The tenant clearly wanted more from the landlord than he was entitled to however."
.I don't read any ill will towards the landlord in the letter. In fact, I think that disclosure of the landlord's action in returning the rent, deposit, and adding $1000 "clearly" placed the landlord in a good light.
If you re-read the parts pertaining to the letter more objectively, you might find that the parts relating to responsibilities of the renter and the landlord were simply stated as fact. Any overtone of frustration in the letter appears directed at the lack of any true "emergency housing services", locally, which has already been addressed by previous posts to this one.
On Holes in the Safety Net
Posted on September 6 at 1:29 p.m.
I agree with spacey--it seems more of a politically-based rip, than a racial one.
As to racism, Italiansurg has (probably unknowingly) brought up a point that often goes unnoticed: There is a difference in bigotry and racism. BIGOTRY is an intolerance of others for pretty much any reason (and often the cause of prejudice). RACISM is actually meant to be specifically applicable to support of bigoted practices (such as forcing black people to the back of a bus) *by the government*, however, it's commonly taken to be any kind of practice that appears to be degrading to someone, due to their race. [Aside, I think that is due to the term "racist" being applied liberally, which connotates to the original definition.]
There is also no reason that the dark history (pardon the pun) of the U.S. should be forgotten, but to paraphrase Italiansurg--sans the name-calling ("professional victims")--*persons* SHOULD look more toward the future than the past, and consider that they have greater opportunities in the modern world than their ancestors had. And, while it may make me appear bigoted/racist, I DO direct that last comment towards black Americans in particular--the ones that actually fit the stereotype(s)!
Lastly, I am going to stop before I start agreeing too much with 'surg. :)
On Racism in America: A Nation in Denial
The Theatre Group at SBCC presents Michael Frayn's hilarious comedy! Read More
Previous Month | Next Month