Caladan

I think it's more identification in these cases: what did the shooter look like, etc.

Poor people.

1985 Oldsmobile station wagon. (This was in 1996.) A guy at our church donated it to the parish, and the pastor called up my dad and said "Don't you have a 16-year-old daughter who could use a car?" So we bought it from the church for $1. Ugliest car ever, but it lasted till about 2003.

First car I purchased was a 2009 Honda Fit.

Or, she moved here and now has a life here independently of the original hopes and dreams. If C. and I were to divorce I'd expect that he would stay here, because he has a job and friends and is established here. He might decide instead to go home, but I could see why he might not want to quit his job and move back in a bad economy.

That's pretty callous...would she be wrong if she wanted to stay? Even if it seemed difficult for her to thrive here without this garbage, she could do it.

Why should her hopes and dreams be cancelled because of his insincerity and dishonesty????? I believe she DOES have a right to stay on a CR1 and she can get divorced too!

her hopes and dreams for a K1 should have been to start a new life with the man she loved, not to start a new life in a new country. the new country part should have been an incidental thing. if not then she was not being entirely honest in the K1 process, right? the K1 is not for people that want to live in america. its for people that want to get married to the person they love and dream of spending the rest of their life with.

i'm sure she would be welcome to go back to her home country and apply for an immigrant visa to start a new life in a new country if that was her hopes and dreams.

Or, you know, you could think that maybe if someone's moved thousands of miles, she might be in a better position to know what she's given up and what her options are than you do. "Just go home if your marriage fails" is not universally good advice, which is why the U.S. government has provided a legal route for people whose marriages fail to stay. Just because you'd want to go home, or because you'd want your spouse deported, does NOT mean that is someone else's best option.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/soy/NS_patient-soy

Here is some more information. (The "evidence" and "safety" section is very good at rating the reliability of the various claims.) Basically, we know it's been used as a food source in both the fermented and non-fermented forms for thousands of years; there still needs to be more research done on its relationship to estrogen-sensitive cancers.

soy naturally mimics estrogen. people (including me before i figured out it made me 'doughy') buy soy milk, soy protein bars, etc. thinking they're making a better choice. contrarily, they're not. men should especially stay away from soy products or the overuse thereof.

Given that men in Japan don't run into problems and actually live longer, healthier lives, I wouldn't worry about my soy intake.

No man boobs yet?

By the way, diabetes is becoming epidemic in Asian contries, like the Philippines, same as the US.

Right, but not from eating soy, but from eating a Westernized diet full of processed junk.

soy naturally mimics estrogen. people (including me before i figured out it made me 'doughy') buy soy milk, soy protein bars, etc. thinking they're making a better choice. contrarily, they're not. men should especially stay away from soy products or the overuse thereof.

Given that men in Japan don't run into problems and actually live longer, healthier lives, I wouldn't worry about my soy intake.

I think the study that showed a problem showed it only with abnormally high levels of soy intake. Of course, soy was a fad for a while (in shampoo, conditioner, face scrubs, etc) and I suppose it would be theoretically possible to get too much. But just eating tofu instead of beef or chicken should be okay.

I would think a prenup would be a reason for denial, at the embassy level, and at the AOS level for those adjusting in the US. How do you show a co-mingling of assets if the one or both of the parties has already segregated the assets into mine and yours? This seems particularly cruel to an immigrant that may be desperate to sign anything, just to get into the US.

Because that's not how a pre-nup works. You can still show that assets are co-mingled; everything from the marriage forward, names on new cars, houses, leases, etc. Having a pre-nup doesn't entail that the couple isn't sharing day-to-day life completely. Someone might have a pre-nup to protect their kids' inheritance in the case of a divorce, or to specify arrangements for the care of their elderly parents, or to keep money that is in the extended family (e.g., you're heir to the Gould fortune or something) separate from the new household. Or someone might sign a pre-nup to say "I am not interested in your money."

Springing a pre-nup on a new immigrant would be a dickish thing to do, but that's not the fault of the pre-nup.

We didn't have one, because for our case the usual protections of law suffice.

Quite a lot of the prison population are non-violent drug offenders, usually for something like possession. Being in jail doesn't cure their addiction, and recidivism rates are high. Whatever we're doing, it isn't working. I'd rather have the money to keep the violent guys behind bars and funnel possession-type offenses into treatment.

Yes, I absolutely think that the American penal system should be thoroughly reformed. However, how that can be achieved when each state is allowed to set such different standards is totally beyond me.

I would still much rather see a discussion about a very important subject started using a reputable piece rather than some crappy blog though, whatever you say.

MC, Glenn Greenwald is an American Constitutional and civil rights litigator. He's not some guy with a hairy back, sitting at his computer at home and blogging for the hell of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald

Blogs are unverified opinion pieces. If you value journalism and its integrity you should seek wherever possible to use sources that have more validity - you as in the general you, not you particularly.

Greenwald is better sourced than most of the news pieces. He's well respected, and he writes for mainstream publications sometimes, too.

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

^^ I know you are so right. I just really need to get over it and get some cards and teach myself not to spend what I don't have. I think I'll still wait until I have a job at least.... so I'm not tempted...

C. had a history of being very bad with credit, but we got him a card with a low limit anyway so he can build a history of paying it off in full every month. We set up e-mail and text message alerts so he could get a mental sense of his balance and what he could afford, and I (with very good credit) reminded him.

When we recently applied for a car loan, we had some trouble because of his short (~16 month) credit history, but between our joint income and my credit rating we were able to get both of us on a car loan. That's going to do more for his credit file than a credit card.

So if you get something with a low limit and just use it for essentials (maybe it's your "groceries-only" card) and pay it off IN FULL, you can start building your credit history without too much risk.

The bank did tell us to be careful with store cards, because while they're very easy to get, they're also very ruthless about reporting to credit agencies, so they could be a risky choice for someone just starting out, if the person isn't good with credit.

Gun control *is* about the last thing on Obama's mind. It wasn't a major part of his campaign! The only people who seem to believe it is a major sekrit hidden agenda are those who were predicting widespread riots after the election.

Terribly sad.

I can almost understand how someone could forget to drop a child at daycare on the way to work, then get wrapped up in the work routine, but when this woman fed the other kids and put them to bed, how could she not realize the littlest one was missing?? The kids are right there, and surely there's a routine for them, formula or baby food for the infant, and wouldn't the older kids have said something if they were old enough to talk? Makes me wonder if she was indeed incapacitated in some way, putting all of the kids in danger. Truly heartbreaking.

There was a recent article about this in the NYT. Most of the time when a parent forgets a child in a car, alcohol and drugs are involved. But in a significant number of cases, it's something like simple exhaustion, and it's to an otherwise good parent. And the reason the researchers thinks it happens is that the parent is tired and the usual routine is something where he or she wouldn't see the kid. Daycare is the most common one (sometimes the parents even drive to the daycare afterwards with their dead kid in the car, to pick up the kid.) E.g., take the baby out of the car, put the baby in bed for the night. The brain doesn't think "where's the baby?" because as far as the brain is concerned, that task has already been completed and filed. (Just like after you put the baby down to bed, you don't think "is the baby still in the bed?"; you *know* that you've done it.) It's the same sort of auto-pilot that can make someone, for example, accidentally take a turn towards the office while driving on the weekend.

One suggestion I've heard is to leave something like a briefcase or purse in the backseat next to the baby. Something, basically, that forces even a tired brain to look.

Wow! Congratulations to Lai!

That shows they disagree. It doesn't show that they're a troll. (I'm not sure what that would mean, here. That they're really pro-handgun? They seem to be pretty straightforward about what they support.) They're not the NRA, obviously, but the NRA is not the only permissible gun owners' organization. It sounds like these guys are pro-regulation on handguns.

In any case, the new political movement is real, because there's a natural alliance between sportsmen who like to hunt and conservationists who like to preserve places where people can do hunting. (And sport shooting has become popular among some liberal DC pundits. Gun control just isn't the heart of any national campaigns these days.)

I've been angry with C. at times, but his family has always treated me with respect, and there wasn't a woman living in his house about whom C. kept strangely silent. Even leaving the huge issues of language, culture, income, religion, and potential marriage fraud aside... you really need to think this through.

You can marry! There's no right to immigrate.

I think HannahP's response -- confusion, followed by a slow realization -- is psychologically quite common, which is something to keep in mind when running through hero scenarios in your head. (Also, the castle doctrine varies between states, and it often makes a difference whether the person is outside or inside the house.) A similar break-in attempt happened to a friend of mine about a year ago. She was putting her toddler down for a nap, and heard some glass smash, and came downstairs to see someone running away from the house (another guy who figured no one was home.)

I'm glad you're okay -- and good for your dog!

The thing is, in the long run, the tighter lending standards are good for everyone. It's just that being caught in the middle (preapproved under one standard, denied under another) has got to suck. In 2005, 10% down was (probably wrongly) considered responsible.

They had a deal; if the bank changed the terms of the deal (which is what saying "we need a bigger downpayment" means), normally that's a point at which all parties can say "the terms have changed, thanks, but no thanks."

They had a prequal. A prequal isn't a deal. Deals occur at closing.

But if it was just a pre-qual, then there's no deal, and their money should be returned.

I think "no meals after 6pm" is more of a guideline based on the typical American lifestyle, because it's likely to mean that the last meal is an additional meal.

There is only one real diet: the eat less, move more diet.

Just eat less of the foods you usually do. Changing what you eat is fraught with peril.

But the food most people eat make them want to eat more. What you eat is as important as is how much of it.

People still think a 'low-fat/fat-free' label is a green light. Those can be packed with sugar and calories.

Exercise is key though.

Live within your means and pay cash for everything.

Seems so simple.

There's nothing wrong with managing credit responsibly. (I'm not talking running up debt on credit cards, but if you decide not to go to college because you can't pay cash, that's not a smart long-term investment.)

It's hard to say without knowing your weight. Losing 15 pounds is a different task if you're 120 pounds vs. 200, or near a healthy weight or obese.

But, first things first:

1) Bye-bye soda. (Lots of empty calories.)

2) Bye-bye processed foods. (Ditto.)

3) Ignore fads, and try to eat unprocessed, natural foods. (Learn to cook if you need to.)

4) Exercise. Even if it's just a half-hour walk around the block at first.

So, one of the things that comes up here is establishing credit for a spouse. I figured I'd post our recent adventure in securing a car loan for the general edification.

When C. moved down here, we got him a secured credit card through Bank of America. It has a low limit, and he pays it off in full monthly. That was about sixteen months ago.

We've pulled his credit report, but the agencies are unable to determine a score because of such a short history. We can see the record of timely payments; it's just not long enough, so he counts as "no credit."

Anyhow. This meant, in this era of tightening credit, that even with my excellent credit rating, we were turned down for a car loan at Bank of America. We ended up going through the dealer's financing and secured a reasonably good rate, and he mentioned a couple of things that might be of interest.

1) We were turned down at a number of banks before we found one that was willing to approve it and look at income, not just credit history.

2) The dealer said they used to be able to pull Canadian credit history; with the tightening credit market, that's no longer their policy. I have no idea how generalizable this is, but I thought it was interesting.

Anyhow, the story ends happily. But I thought it might be an interesting data point.