yuna628

Friday was fun times, when I got a call from a family member to say their apartment complex had been hit by a tornado. They were terrified, but okay. Car got smashed up though. Others were not so lucky... some of the building now has no roof and objects were projectiled through the brick walls. One person's house has no upper floors anymore. I went outside to look and the sky was the eeriest shade of green you ever did see. Nope... nope do not like that! So i grabbed everything of remote important value and got the rest of the family down in the basement. We had a tornado a while back that had completely defoliated and scarred a good stretch of the forest here, so I was taking this seriously, even when the elderly grumble about having to go downstairs. Thankfully things happen to storms when they need to cross the water, so though it was pretty wild, no damage here. Tornados were not something we used to have to worry about.. not any more. I've been running on little sleep for a few weeks now. A while back I made the decision to have the dog sleep in bed with us at night. With his advanced age, his anxiety has increased severely and the vet was thinking it was doggy dementia ... now that he's nearly completely blind, we've had to also put on a night light or some soothing sounds. All was good for a while. We were all getting sleep. He was happier, rested, and perkier. But lately instead of sleeping he will wake every morning at 3am, confused and distressed. He'll moan as if his joints are bothering him, he'll wander the bed checking on us, and if we don't wake up straight away he will cry. We've tried the anxiety meds... that does not make him " mellow" in any way. We next tried a pain reliever that does seem to help his joints, and for a few nights he was sleeping just fine again. Until last night... at 3am.. ugh.

Food for thought from someone dealing with elderly parents with cancer... Cancer does just happen one day... someday. Hopefully never, but for those that get it, it's someday. There's always going to be a time when you don't know you have cancer vs when you do. Cancers don't always fit into neat packages of when, how, or why they appear. My mom likely had cancer for quite some time. She went to her primary but they never knew. She complained of pain in her bones, but never of abdominal issues. At my begging over years she finally went to see a Rheumatologist and they are the one that found it. And I will never forget that phone call. She went through surgery and treatment and lived. But our young family friend that got his same diagnosis around the same time - aggressively spread and dead within the year. Generally prostate cancers are hopefully picked up on a test, but it's to my understanding some times they just aren't. We can all be skeptical. I could say that we'd all hope that our presidents receive the best medical care, but I'm not so sure of that. We don't know what goes on. My dad is terribly unhealthy and goes to more doctors than he can probably even remember anymore. But I can tell you, I know who the good ones are.. the ones that actually give a damn about their elderly patients and are willing to think outside of boxes to get a diagnosis. Those are the ones that I credit with saving my dad's life so many times now. Because he's walked around with brain tumours, blood clots, cancer, and much more.. which plenty just never picked up on. But a lot of this relies on family to advocate, the patient to be honest and advocate, and to get that good doctor. Lately there was a story that implied that Biden's doctor was concerned if he had a fall he'd need to be in a wheelchair, as he'd had several falls and had stiffness and gait issues. OK, did he think he was just another old guy hobbling about? Hey my dad hobbles too.. has had bad falls, and sometimes he needs to go in a wheelchair. Well, I think about that now in light of his diagnosis, and having cancer going to your bones might have been a big clue. It's disturbing it wasn't caught earlier, which of course will lead to people being skeptical. I get that. But we just don't know either way. He's had covid a lot, and there's new research that's showing it can facilitate cancer spread. My husband's grandfather is well advanced beyond Biden's age, dementia, and just recently diagnosed with same thing. No one ever knew. It's the NHS though so I can't say what screening care was available. Getting men to go to a urologist or get a prostate exam, let alone other procedures to get checked can be hard. I know because my dad is dealing with that now, after never being screened (yes even after going to the doctor for years). He just had surgery and it took a lot of coaxing for that... Men.. please get checked. Advocate for yourselves. Your wives and kids will thank you.

My husband put all his consoles and laptop in his carry-on luggage. They were at the time required to be treated as a laptop and removed to a separate bin for screening, but it was doable. The other electronics and cables that weren't too important that he couldn't fit he put in his checked baggage and got special travel insurance to cover any losses. We recently returned home from the UK and his parents insisted he take one very old console he left behind. We were pressed for time so we just packed it in our checked luggage and it was fine.. but if anything has a lithium battery it will need to fit in your carry-on.

You needed to leave the premises with the DS-3025. I would call or email your medical location and request they send your copy immediately. You will have bigger issues without it. You will need a copy for your AOS application.

Mind you the following is a bit out of date but the information regarding TDP/Tdap/TD applies. The question about TD vs other formulations comes up over the years... just nod, smile, and move on. Doesn't matter the formulation, you got what they accept. Now if you'd like for your own personal benefit to get pertussis on your own, you can do that, but otherwise don't worry about it. The important thing is do you have the DS-3025 and are you marked as complete?

When my husband asked who the new pope was, he started laughing, and *this* clip was the first thing that popped into his head!

I look at it this way - you are the sponsor, so therefore you are responsible for your foreign partner. You are guaranteeing that they will not become a public charge by offering your financial support. In any regular marriage that might result in a divorce, a spouse being responsible for certain types of support such as alimony or child support or some sort of settlement is common. This is why prenups are sensible in many cases. When a woman remarries in those cases, the prior spouse may be free of financial liability in many states, but immigration is different. Prenups and other state laws do not usurp federal law. The contract is between you the sponsor, the immigrant, and the government - and therefore any financial liabilities that result in the event of some wrong-doing on the part of the foreign spouse (obtaining benefits they are not eligible for), the government reserves the right to sue. Once the terms are met by working, citizenship, and or death, you are released from any further liability.

The new pope has been elected. Robert Prevost, an American, from the order of St Augustine. He takes the name Leo XIV. https://apnews.com/live/conclave-pope-catholic-church-updates-5-8-2025

The husband's first jury duty was quite uneventful, he waited for about an hour and then was sent home, which is a good thing because someone jammed some items down the toilets and flooded the courthouse. He was very disappointed as he was excited to participate. We decided to take the weekend to go antiquing. He was excited to find some LPs and after a long search I finally found the item I was looking for. A few months back an item was posted to the store's social media of a piece of porcelain and I never got a response so I wanted to go see it myself. Didn't know if it was still there, but it was hidden way back on a shelf. Basically my great grandfather's profession was master carpentry and antiques, and as a result my great grandmother had passed numerous pieces down the line, especially when she traveled the world. This piece is Japanese from the Meiji era by a particular maker. They made many different designs but I only know one other person that has something that matches my own. This piece at the store matched exactly and was pristine, and I was very excited see the kanji was marked too!

Wow a question that brings back memories of long ago... most of my education in civics and constitutional history had me diving into those questions. This might be a long one, so I hope you don't mind, but it's kind of a complicated answer. Checks and balances are supposed to prevent any one of the separate branches from becoming too powerful. Currently we largely have dereliction of duty on the part of one of those branches (Congress) and executives (many over the years not signaling out any) who are running hard on grabbing power when it's handed off too freely and issuing fiats or EOs in the face of that dereliction which depending on your affiliation or perspective at any given moment might seem a bit tyrannical or at least at risk to be perceived that way. Give an inch take a mile as the saying goes. But when SCOTUS makes a decision that seems consequential on society, it seems no checks exist at first. There are numerous cases over the years that have had huge impacts on our society some good and some bad. As time passes some of those decisions are found to be meritless or wrong and require change because they were harmful or do not reflect standards of the present time - others have remained fundamental good decisions that are consistent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We are all human and infallible - mistakes get made... but with unchecked power, those mistakes can be big so that's why it's important to elect the right people. Judges and SCOTUS in particular are critical in performing a function of curbing executive power, just as Congress also has a critical responsibility in doing so because the founders knew that too much unchecked power meant kings and tyrants could be on the horizon. That does not mean these branches have to always say no, to the contrary, they have the right to say yes or even a mixed bag. They do not and should not be giving out blank checks or always agreeing with whatever someone wants just because a party would like them to. But let's imagine a world where Joe Biden is president, the entire SCOTUS croaks in an accident and he nominates a new cast of characters. Where's the checks and balances? Well, for one, the President gets to nominate in the first place, and as such the judge in general tends to be a reflection of that. Though I tend to think that a judge should simply be a good one with sound practice and not a political animal (that doesn't mean that judge should be chosen to simply give the executive a blank check). The second check comes on the part of the Senate which gives a thumbs up or down on the nomination, it's also not supposed to be a blank check process. Beyond that, there is little else on the part of the executive branch to do with SCOTUS and that's as it was designed. The rest of the checks all fall to Congress - that has the power change the size of the court, decide what cases they may hear, amend laws ruled on by the court in a positive or negative manner, or impeach. Because afterall, they are the persons nominated to represent the voters. Voiding an executive branch action is essential duty to both SCOTUS and Congress because otherwise the executive is unchecked and ceases to be an executive, but a king. Executives are meant to be making decisions but the rest of the branches have the power to check them by - elections, impeachments in the worst case scenario and voting on bills and nominations. The executive can veto bills, but their vetoes can be and should be overruled if necessary. Maybe that makes some people feel as if the executive is powerless (I'd bet executives might grumble about this all the time), but my gosh I'd say most people think the executive has been quite powerful no matter what party is in charge. In Fed #78, Hamilton talks about how the judiciary is perceived. He surmises it is the least powerful of the branches when it comes to the ability to make war or the power of the purse - but it is an essential branch of important judgement. It checks the executive, but must also rely on the other two branches to enact what it interprets as fair, or change what isn't. The day the executive decides to ignore that check, and a day when Congress stands idly by, is a bad one. He foresaw potential weak points in the idea and the founders mulled how to fix them. For the final question about nationwide injunctions well there's lots of arguments: some against them might say it allows a lower court to rule on matters that should be SCOTUS' job (these cases do get there eventually anyway)... but I'd say there's a good purpose for them. If the federal government is causing an injury or harm in all states, it wouldn't be practical to have a ruling only apply to people in one state and not in another. While it is becoming a controversial subject take a look at some of these articles. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/do-universal-injunctions-lead-to-national-rule-by-one-judge/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/district-court-reform-nationwide-injunctions/ https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/one-for-all-are-nationwide-injunctions-legal/ And here - opinions that I don't disagree with. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/26/asymmetrical-nationwide-injunctions/ https://reason.com/volokh/2025/03/14/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-lift-universal-injunctions-against-its-bitrthright-citzenship-order/ In short, executives are always going to be crying about having their power curtailed, congress could fix a lot of problems if they'd do their job to check both the executive and the judicial, and nationwide injunctions are not as terrifying as their critics make it seem - they seem to be beloved or hated depending on the way the political wind is blowing.

European countries have already had dyes removed for years. Though I will note that in the US that trans fats were 'removed' from many foods in the effort to be more healthy, and that was complained about and is still complained about years later. There's really no teeth to this dye "removal" akin to asking companies politely to remove it. Wouldn't want to get the lobbyists upset. Now in the UK it is very hard to find many products without artificial diet sweeteners because of the sugar tax (which... don't get me started). Coke is one of the only still offering regular sugar Coca-Cola on the shelves there.

I will always remember that Francis was the cause of having no hotels to book on our wedding week in 2015. 😃 If you're interested in some good movies related to this topic - Conclave is on Amazon Prime starting today. The Two Popes has been on Netflix for a while and is also excellent.

As a K1 - 1)arrive and get married as soon as possible 2)get your marriage certificate copies (many) 3)get over to the SSA and get his first card it will have ''work with DHS authorization'' on it. 4) file for AOS + EAD/AP (this is pretty well covered in the guides here) 5) wait a stupid long time. while waiting get the spouse added to things like accounts and health insurance 6)EAD arrives - this is the authorization needed

You have to tell them via a form that you've moved. It's been a long time and still paying for us, but every year you upload your paystubs and they assess how much the repayment is going to cost. We used to have to do this manually (with the long turnaround for mail they threatened us once and it required an expensive phone call to sort out and some documents back and forth), but thankfully they updated options on the website and you can now update the info from there. Then we just pay every month. Easier if you still have UK banking. IIRC we did not pay them a thing until my husband was working.

I would strongly encourage to stop using ChatGPT and to consult a CPA.

Another human excuse for an amoeba who was involved in hard-core neo-Nazi groups online. Would be good if they could bust some other individuals from this case.

Final update to this case: Victor Martinez-Hernandez was convicted after short jury deliberation of all counts of the brutal rape and murder of Rachel Morin. The Baltimore FBI did excellent work on this case. It is unknown whether he will face trial in cases involving other women and children he preyed upon.

The current emerging story paints the picture of a deranged woman and child abuser. It's terrifying that he had been allowed shared custody of some of his children. To get the gasoline he needed to make the Molotovs he siphoned it out of someone's lawn mower. How this guy managed to breach security is crazy. I love PA, but like the 'Florida Man' meme there is also a type that comes out of there.

Estate Sale Rants with TBone Costco, Netflix, and Chill Dating Adventures and Rants of an Unexpected Kind Barrel of VJ Monkey Rants

Human excuse for an amoeba Cody Balmer apparently walked an hour up to the PA governor's mansion, climbed over the wall and while the guards apparently did nothing, entered the building set it on fire, and then slipped out the way he came. The police affidavit said he wanted to beat the governor to death with a sledgehammer. The governor and his family had been having their Passover meal before going to bed and were unaware that the suspect had intruded let alone set it on fire. Thankfully they evacuated safely. The damage to the historical property has been horrific. I think someone responsible for safety needs firing.. This report states that his mother was aware his was off his meds and tried to get the police department to arrest him multiple times (he already has a criminal record). https://www.cbsnews.com/philadelphia/news/cody-balmer-governors-residence-fire-josh-shapiro-harrisburg/

As someone libertarian-minded I can only stand back and watch with somewhat amusement because after spending years of my life learning about economics and history from a conservative perspective, it is strange that we have arrived at a moment of intense economic self-injury of which no conservative principles or common sense can be found. Nothing good will come out of tariffs and our economic problems will continue to deepen. It's not just about tariffs of course, there's other concerning economic signs I see, but I sympathize greatly in conversations I've had with small and medium-sized business owners that will now have their worth wiped out, innovation stifled, and many close up shop. I have a great deal of empathy for people that are suffering right now, regardless of their age. I guess it must be a common assumption that boomers were all wealthy enough to put their money into retirement funds and 401Ks or that they actually had savings to begin with. It's not true for everyone though. My parents wasted what little they had long ago, did not plan for any future, and expected their children to be drained dry caring for them. And so we have to the best of our ability. My sibling has worked for over 30 years and has sacrificed their entire life for my parents - that retirement fund was to be finally something to have for themselves once my parents are gone. They've had losses before, particularly during the Bush administration and again during Trump, which they finally chose to move some money out of the market. Now what little is left will be gone I expect. My husband doesn't even have money in the market thank god or else that would be gone too. We could not afford to take such a risk. Tariffs do not offend me, but they are a dangerous and foolish thing that no conservative should ever be wrapping their arms around. My life was not paved in gold, nor was the lives of my family - my parents cared little either way. They came from nothing, had nothing, and wanted to give nothing let alone help themselves as long as everyone is expected to help them. I often recall a conversation with my father that he was happy to receive his SSA benefits, and did not care if there was anything left for his children because he'd be dead. My mother is happy to also receive her benefits but will often say that the SSA program is 'evil' and 'should never have existed' so she also does not care if you or me or anyone else who has labored hard should receive them so long as she/her husband does. So really, I do not begrudge the elderly or anyone else for being angry that their portfolios are being drained, at least they had something to begin with, and hopefully they can move it somewhere safe for the long term, because it's not going to be pretty.

*sigh* I have spent the better part of a week trying to get people to understand why this chick had this happen to her. Furthermore to get them to understand that this would have happened to someone in the same scenario in the UK. Not much luck, people either not reading or insisting that there's no legitimate for her detention. Overall, we could only agree that it's the best interest to send people on their way quickly, instead of holding them in these scenarios. Under the Biden admin I think an Irish band was deported because they were intending on playing gigs in exchange for free room and board. I don't believe they were held for a long time.

I've seen people try to make comparisons to PBS/NPR. BBC is fine as a media organization, and it does a lot more than just air news. Any news organization in the UK, not just the BBC seems closely entwined in government. You can't publish anything about the Crown or government (even if embarrassing info) without their knowledge and approval in some way... the way I understand it? Honestly Boiler, I think currently if we did have a national broadcaster doing what you suggest in that scenario, that some people wouldn't have a problem with it, particularly if it fit within a certain political party goal (that can go either way). There is never just such a thing as a rich benign philanthropist. A person with money and power is in general always looking to promote their own self-interests and generate more wealth and power. This is one reason why newspapers are dying, large media organizations are struggling, and good writers are being pushed out. Citizen journalism does a good job most of the time, but can be extremely error prone and not bound by any sort of ethics and eventually even when those get a larger following online - end up falling into the trap of promoting their self-interests.

All of the minds on SCOTUS are in general particularly decent in their rulings and always interesting in their thoughts, even if some of those thoughts may be a bit out there (looking at Alito)it's nice to see how they may arrive at an argument's ruling. If a court ruled the same way all the time and had no unique thoughts then it would be quite the kangaroo court now wouldn't it? Just because someone approaches a subject or has different feelings on a subject than you do does not make them incompetent to be on the bench. Bright legal minds don't just reside in one political spectrum. I've been reading court decisions since I was very young and each justice, present and past, have their own strengths and weaknesses as it should be. I would say that age can be a significant factor though to always consider. Both sides have considered court packing - and as with anything I often caution what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Court packing is based out of the desire to see the judiciary rule a certain way by default, and not checks and balances. But the executive being held to abide by the judiciary is another check and balance. This thread posits, disturbingly, to the contrary a dangerous and slippery slope.