Wei&Shu(Joe)

How long have you been beating your wife?

Thanks for the non-sequiter. Perhaps you could explain how that relates to the question.

Hello,

My fiancee will arrive on her K-1 visa at JFK on March 20. Does anyone know what forms they will ask her to complete on the plane and submit upon arrival? Can you provide a web link so we can practice? I would appreciate it. Thanks.

There are instructions here and if you can google you can find images of I-94 forms.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/id_visa/...ing_out_i94.xml

One note for a person coming from a country with a non-Roman alphabet, however she writes her name on the I-94 is the way that social security says the name has to be forever more. If for example her name were Alak Annan she may not always write that space between the 2. If she wants first name Alak, middle name Annan, she has to be sure the space is there or she will go into the systen as Alakannan, first name.

This happens to Chinese women. Not sure if it applies to Thai women's names.

Interstingly, this seems to only be the case in the US now as when I went to my local GP to get a tetanus booster for the visa they said that I only needed 5 shoots (3 months, 2 at 4 years, 5 years and 10 years old) in my lifetime. Aparently this should give full immunization throughout life. Maybe if you go to the hospital with a nasty cut they would give a booster but you don't have to follow them up every 10 years now - hooray since I'd forgotten to get mine at 20 But, I'm all covered for the next 10 years now so I don't mind having the booster. In fact in the UK you can only get it as a TDap now (for an adult anyway), weird.

WHO recommendation is the same as the US recommendation for every 10 years.

http://www.who.int/immunization/topics/tet.../en/index3.html

Says Todd: “There’s no worse crime in journalism these days than simply deciding something’s a story because Drudge links to it.”

Video

http://www.mediaite.com/online/nbcs-chuck-...ven-journalism/

Hey since you got that cool graphic in your sig and you're discussing journalism can you tell me whether you can answer these questions based on the sources of journalism that you choose:

1) How old was the email that said "hide the decline"?

2) What are they discussing in that email exchange that says "hide the decline"?

Thanks!

Yes, same age range. Mahal never has had the chicken pox, and she received the first varicella shot at SLEC, and it is 2 in a series. So should she get the 2nd varicella before going to the Civil Surgeon?

Other poster said only first Tdap shot is required since it is 5-10 year interval

Adult dTaP is one time deal and at 10 year intervals a dT booster is given. Time shortens to 5 years only for a serious wound that is heavily contaminated with soil (where tetanus lives)

She should just need her second varivax but I think you can go ahead and file then get the shot after she is on your insurance.

However, many health insurance policies don't cover adult immunization. Some just cover flu shots for adults. You should contact your insurance to find out if they are going to cover a varicella shot once she is on your insurance.

I'll try to summarise our status.

My Chinese wife arrived in the US on a K1 in July 2009, we married two months later.

Our marriage hasn't gone well. She is very stubborn, and hasn't adjusted well. I'm not abusive, but I lose patience.

She is openly rude and disrespectful to me. She values the opinions of her chinese friends over mine, even with situations specific to our life.

'Why you pay this? My friend say you no need to pay this!!' (this about CAR insurance)

I'm often told I'm stupid, and don't know anything about life in America. (On the phone with chinese friends again)

I'm a middleaged man, college graduate, and other than a few years in the military, have lived here all my life.

Her language skills have not improved much, I thought she spoke OK english when we met. She makes no effort to READ english. She's in danger of being thrown out of the ESL classes she has been attending for over a year due to not observing the classroom rules and lack of basic courtesy.

I was totally honest with her about my finances, and life, in general when we met, and tried to assure she understood I had some debts to pay off. I mentioned this during out courtship, verbally.....in emails, etc. REPEATEDLY.

About the time she arrived in the US, the economy took a dump.....( can I blame her?) My work slowed, and eventually I was laid off my job.

We were arguing a bit before then. When I was laid off, she instructed me to move into the spare bedroom. ( I do snore) This was last june, and we have not slept together since then. I was without work for about a month and a half, which gave me more time at home.

I discovered she was chatting with men on Yahoo, and talking to them on her cell phone. Some as close as a few miles away, others a few hundred miles away.

Occasionally she would get rides home from shopping from somebody who dropped her off out of sight of our house.

I've got the cell phone records, and called several of the men who told me she claimed she was single.

Financially, we were struggling at this time.

I mentioned divorce. She claims she doesn't like me. She told me it wasn't fair to her, since we lived in a rented house......I did not own a house she could get half of.

The state we married in, and are residents of, has a one year separation period before divorce, or a one year abandonment provision.

I offered to pay her way back to China, and support her for a year.....at a monthly rate higher than she was earning when we met.

She said 'Not enough'.

She usually screened the incoming mail when it arrived. She handed me 'my mail'. I opened an envelope without looking. It was a bank statement for a secret bank account of hers, at a local bank. She has more savings than I do. (thousands)

A few weeks earlier I had helped her open up another bank account, with a smaller sum of 'her' money. As far as I knew, after 8 months of marriage, that was all she had.

I was still unemployed at this time, with a job interview looming. She wanted to visit a friend in another state. I was disgusted with her. I offered her a one way plane ticket, praying she wouldn't come back.

The new job I was interviewing for meant I had to travel a lot. I started it a few days after she left.

She came back on her own 2 weeks later, while I was gone.

Since then, things have been rockier. I like the lady, sometimes. I understand she is stubborn. I don't understand why she wants to continue to live with me if she thinks I'm so worthless......other than to stay in the US.

I make about 25% less at my current job, and have to be away from home up to 3 weeks at a time. She gets rides to school with a teacher or friend, and sometimes shopping. I know she is bored. She is still chatting with guys on the internet, and I found more strange phone numbers on our cell phone bill.

She also has a profile on a dating site...with a picture I took of her, and giving her age as 4 years younger. I made a screenshot of the profile I've kept.

She tells me she chats with guys because she is lonely, and they are just friends, and she is also trying to find american guys for her friends back in china. I told her to stop it. She hasn't.

I let her see anything on my laptop. i have nothing to hide. When i get near our home PC when she is on it, she is busy hiding things, closing windows, etc.

I don't trust her. She doesn't trust me. She thinks I have money hidden. (I don't)

I'm struggling to pay our bills,and some back debts.

I know she has friends who are telling her angles to work, in case I try to force a divorce. She keeps telling me 'you go out of town and no leave me money for food'. I do, cash, most of the time. I also set up a bank account with a small amount she could access with a debit card I gave her, and I could replenish from my bank account if I was stuck out of town. She has never used this money.

She also tells me she will lose face if she divorces, and has to go back to china. I'm sleeping on an air mattress in the spare bedroom, supporting an stubborn chinese woman who treats me with disdain. I don't care about her 'face'. I sure as hell don't have any.

I'm still pretty broke. I'm trying to summon enough savings to offer her a ticket back to china, and some cash, before we are supposed to apply for her ten year green card. I have no other plan, other than to not cooperate with the paperwork.

I feel sorry for her. She's a middleaged Chinese woman with no job or apartment to go back to, but I don't see her changing enough to make my life tolerable.

I almost think she is retarded at times, she's so stubborn. Then I realize it's a mixture of her lack of english skills, and her stubborness.

I have to explain the same things to her, every month. Next month she will claim I never told her about these things, and we start all over again.

She's also taken to investing some of her money in stocks, and has lost about 1/4 of it. When I found out about this secret money, she told me it was from her father. I don't want it. I want her to preserve it in case she needs it to live on...BACK IN CHINA. I'm afraid she'll lose it all.

I don't mean to make this sound like she is totally evil. She is dishonest at times. A 'no go' for me, or at least has a different interpretation of honesty.

I'm not perfect. I'm fat, and broke, but I'm working 7 days a week to try to keep us afloat.

My family is disgusted with her. They advise me to get an attorney, and even offered to lend me the money to send her home, if she will go.

What other options do I have?

I also think an attorney is your best bet and you should probably take your family up on their offer to help you finance that, but your question is what other options you have. The only one I can think of is either a mediator who speaks Putonghua or a mediator and a translator. If nothing else you can plop down your screen shots and phone number lists, maybe an affidavit from one of her boys if he is sympathetic and is willing to sign off that she pursued a relationship and presented herself as single. If it is explained clearly to her she may re-evaluate her position and take one of your offers. However, she could also a) re-evaluate and flee into the illegal community or b) become more motivated to strengthen her position by creating the appearance of abuse. Hard to say with confidence which way she'd go.

I'd follow others advice also to move your cash to places where she has no access but through you.

In general (big red flag this is a generalization that may or may not apply) Chinese women tend to respect a man who is resolute, firm, sticks to his guns. You don't need to be cruel to change the rules of the game, especially financially, and do it calmly and resolutely. My wife questions my medical advice all the time and quotes a Chinese friend as seeming to know more about medicine. I don't get upset. I just say you know me, you know my study all the time and my work, you take the advice you want but your friend's idea doesn't change my advice. Most of the time she responds by saying "I take husband's advice" and most of the time she does. Again, a generalization but Chinese women are often more prone to believe other Chinese than an American, even their husband, until they've gained a sense of security with you.

Let her know how things will be if she stays and what you can and can't accept. Be sure you collect all that hard evidence of her flirtations for your probable divorce, and start looking for a lawyer or mediator who can speak Chinese or a translator so you know everyone understands what is happening. Do you have any Chinese friends who could translate something you write so that you can be sure you are communicating your stance to her clearly?

Good luck to you. Better luck in the future.

Try and Guess WHO I AM?

I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women.

* I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.

* Later in life, some really stupid people raised questions about my real name for political gain. Many people who have trouble distinguishing internet rumor/conspiracy theory from reality were confused.

* My birth records were clear and I was easily able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate. However, those really stupid, delusional people raised questions about my birth certificate because it looked like every other birth certificate from Hawaii and this confused them. They were also thrown off by the heading on my birth certificate, which indicated it was a record of "live birth." They were thrown off because all theirs said "Certificate of Still Birth."

* I grew up practicing Christianity but converted to Christianity, because, again, a group of brain dead Americans decided to pretend I was raised a Muslim. I practiced such non-traditional beliefs as going to church and praying to Jesus but didn't follow Christianity, because some a@@holes on the internet think everything they read at Stormfront is true. Since Hitler on the other hand also grew up close to his devout Catholic mother and practiced Christianity all his life, this also corrects the fictitious conservative history that Hitler practiced some other faith in childhood. Perhaps the author wishes to inform us that conservatives don't have sufficient mental skills to either read historical texts or differentiate "having a grandparent who may have been born into another religion" and "practicing another religion in childhood."

* I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult. Many of the people mentioned above decided (without any evidence but their internet echo chamber) that I was "disguising myself" as someone who really cared about them.

* That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career. (Interesting how these people are in my head reading my thoughts isn't it but they can because they are conservatives and conservatives have special powers!)

* I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child. DUH!

* I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They ( again, who would "they" be?) said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced their conceit that they were able to be in my head, read my mind, recognize my conceit and reveal to the world the special knowledge they obtained from reading my thoughts. They are like total 21st century Nostradumass!)

* I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization, except for my rather impressive resume as Editor of Harvard Law Review, a professor of Constitutional Law and community organizer and you may have noticed that I was a United States Senator, which, while probably incredibly more impressive than the author of this post doesn't count because I'm A) Black B) "Liberal" C) Democrat Believe me, if you are stupid enough, you can pretend it never happened too! Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.. Or like thetans to a poor volcano traveler, maybe?

* I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances. This bolstered my ego. (Again, so impressive that conservative spies were living in my head all those years monitoring my ego attachments. They are like little Bodhisattva drones! Spooky!)

* At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country. (Now to normal sane humans with some grasp of American history that would be called dissent and being critical of choices made by previous political figures and not "my country" but Fox News taught me how to pretend the two were the same thing so that I could "support" falsehoods that I like to spread about people)

* But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free. Of course, at no time did I ever actually propose that I had a plan or intended to create a plan to insure that every poor person would be "fed & housed for free" but what's a little white lie among conservative pals.

* I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight. (I'm sorry, I just am too hysterical to alter this one. It is a shining trophy of ignorance that must stand for posterity. No, the banks didn't do anything to make us hate them it was all a Liberal plot! BWAH!!)

* I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people. Yet, I was so crafty as to leave no evidence of calling it "A People's Campaign" except in conservative internet posts. I'm a wascally wabbit, I am!

* I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics (you know the Senate, the Democratic party all that totally non-traditional stuff like that. In Conservaland history there's never been a President who was Democratic or came from the Senate apparently) & was able to gain widespread popular support. (while all of the other American Presidents, for those not familiar with the conservative fantasy history, did not enjoy widespread popular support as is commonly thought but were actually elected by the Reptilians disguised as humans and voting after registering through ACORN)

* I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope', together we could change our country and the world. (Hope bad! Mango no like hope! Hope is Nazi plot! Stop hope you Nazi hoper you!)

* So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities" like the Jews. My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader. (Yes, it just sounded that way and only the conservative drones living in my head, knew that I was actually a Reptilian sent to devour small children and take your money back to my planet!)

* I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. (Except of course for the small fact that there is nothing of the sort in my writings but if you just ignore my writings and listen to Fox news they will tell you what I really mean when my words may sound so innocent!)

* I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth. (Insert evil laugh!!)

*Who am I? *

I am Adolph Hitler.

Who were you thinking of?

I corrected it for you so it sounds like who you were trying to conflate with Hitler. Try it this way! Can everyone figure it out now?

Tell me please, why is "persecuted minorities" in quotes? Not really minorities? Not really persecuted? Has the right copyrighted the persecution complex?

Unless he can prove his income is 100% above the poverty level (some consulates want 125%) - he will either need to get a co-sponsor or come live with you.

(Perhaps, since he is "self-employed", he didn't show the correct information needed for the document)

The co-sponsor can be an USC or LPR (living in the US, and over 18) - so once you provide that, you will get your visa.

I would imagine they will not wait very long for the information - did they give you that option to correct the information? Most petitions have a time limit.

Maybe a typo but he needs to make 125% OF the poverty limit, not 100% or 125% above the poverty limit, correct?

It's a big difference. The former means making $18,200 for a family size of 2 while your method would mean an income of $29,140 to $32,780.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure a family of 2 needs 20K and not 30K.

So, how long have you been a member of the Inquisition? Do you get to wear cool robes? Any money in it?

Wow. Brilliant refutation. I stand corrected! The way that you flesh out your viewpoint leaves us in awe. Your 6th grade humor leaves us all running for our whoopy cushion. I had no idea the brilliance of the minds I was up against here. I best take my leave before someone makes a doody joke to prove climate doesn't even exist at all! Why that would surely finish me off!

Am I mistaken or are you having a hard time accepting in the crash of the Global Warming scam?

Nice. Footnotes please. Data? anything to support your claim? No just 7th grade debate skills and undying belief in what your keepers tell you.

Nice. Do you really feel so powerless that you need to be reality's oppositional child to feel important? Yes, you've proved reality is a scam. I'm blown away by the depth of your knowledge and rational proof of your egos dominance over reality.

More important?

Perhaps more peer review work?

Seems like just yesterday he railed on and on how -if we just understood how peer reviewed studies are foil proof and ...we just don't get it.

Now he's not even man enough to show his face and admit he was wrong.

Tsk Tsk Tsk

While I am not entirely familiar with the theories of your tin foil hat crowd, I would expect that foil would have little effect on a peer-reviewed study. The journals I receive usually come in clear plastic, though it wouldn't shock me to find that the ones you read come wrapped in tin foil. Your journals, I'm sure, are foil proof. The studies that relate to climate science are obviously not "foolproof" since every fool and his brother who flunked high school science banter about them as if they have an inkling of what the science actually shows. If you really want to know if they are foil proof, I would take a few and stick them under your hat then observe them at some interval and notice any effect that the foil might be having on the study. I hope, once you've compiled that data, that you'll present it here and let us know whether foil has any effect on peer reviewed studies.

If you honestly believe that there was some info uncovered by "climategate" that calls the peer reviewed literature into question then you are a sucker of the first order. There is no doubt that James Inhofe is the new P.T. Barnum. Maybe the new L. Ron Hubbard is a more apt analogy.

More generally to the "true-believers" of denialism:

One of the glaring mistakes in the material in the original post is that "real" science dealt with certainty and now that has changed. In fact, scientists are much more comfortable with uncertainty than the general population. Science deals in probabilities and there is a level of probability above which an outcome is referred to as a certainty, with the caveat that it is actually a very high probability. It is most notably the religious/ideological thinking style that is prone to extreme discomfort with uncertainty. So great is the discomfort that any gap in knowledge gets filled in with a supernatural being or a conspiracy theory. Those entities share the characteristic of being put forth not with positive evidence for their existence but with arguments that they "must" exist in order to fill some gap in one's own knowledge that creates discomfort or to counter some aspect of reality that exposes the ridiculous nature of one's religious beliefs, whether they be about a god or about climate, or to explain some level of complexity that one personally and arrogantly decides couldn't possibly be consistent with the natural world.

It is, in fact, the addiction to certainty that evokes the paranoid streak that informs the right-wing thinking style. I'm sure you've read about the "sieze and freeze" tendency in that style of thinking. This is also the reason that, as science refines it's probabilities, those prone to this more tribal thinking style point to that process out as science being "wrong" or 'changing its mind." In your world, one sticks to one's opinion no matter how reality may contradict it and no matter how many times it is refuted because you have faith in your keepers and their "special knowledge" as opposed to scientists and their "ordinary knowledge." Science is open to NEW DATA. Science changes in a positive way and is refined by new data that is reproducible and models that are shown to be predictive of reality.

I put "NEW DATA" in capitals because members of your cult often betray your ignorance by accusing scientist of being unscientific or closed-minded because they don't listen to every dimwits opinion on climate. What none of the dimwits have to offer is NEW DATA. It is clear that if the game is to pull 3 words out of a 10 year old email exchange and insert your favorite conspiracy theory onto it and pretend that you have found something relevant about climate science in 2010, then you guys have got the game down well and you play it to perfection. However, if the game is to actually present some evidence that is reproducible in this reality by other evidence seekers, you know, that science game, then you are on the sidelines with absolutely nothing to get you in the game. I'd be pissed off too. The saddest thing is that you lose either way. You can't change the realities of climate with your silly "climategate" games, so you lose in the end either way and the best you can hope for is what every religious zealot hopes for and that is to change a few minds to my way of thinking before I die.

You and your cohorts splash around the info you are being fed by ideologues and create your conspiracy theories to explain why your ideas don't reality test well and to give you the illusion that James Inhofe and Fox news know the truth and have no agenda, while the geeks who've studied global temperatures and tree rings and ice cores all of their life got together to conspire against you and your pals who've spent so much time refining those foil hats. Why you folks even bring up the negative impact of the papacy in the 17th century when that is EXACTLY the negative impact that denialist "true believers" are attempted to insert into the dialogue now. And you folks seem to point out things like how popular your thinking style was in the 17th century and how it interfered with progress toward the truth without any sense of embarrassment or shame. You must have some inkling of how unbelievable that is to reality based people. "Yea, well people like us fought against science in the 17th century and we still haven't learned! So there!" That is your winning argument. Great.

THE most amazing accomplishment of the past 20 years is that Fox news convinced a very vocal minority that "fair and balanced" meant every fool's lies get equal standing with verifiable facts. You now expect that to be the standard in science, that every fool's lie, no matter how inconsistent with reality, no matter how lacking in verifiable evidence has to be given equal weight with the verifiable, reproducible data or else scientists are being closed minded. If you had any data to bring to the table, I'm sure you all would have played that card a long time ago but you don't have it. So you scream like the clergy of the 17th century that your fantasy MUST be true, you attack the modern equivalents of Galileo as undoubtedly fomenting a conspiracy for which you have no evidence because their DATA threatens your doctrine and you guys have the BALLS to pull that out as an example in your argument for false beliefs. Hint: One should probably not be acting like a 17th century clergyman if one is going to attack science by noting the effects of 17th century clergyman on hindering the acceptance of scientific data, at least from the reality based perspective.

So, as Galileo might have done so long ago, I'd say show us the data. Show us good science that refutes the data already collected. Don't you think that some 17th century clergyman walked outside and said "look there is the sun right there going around us" just as you boobs point to winter snowstorms as proof of your backward beliefs? (I never done seen it snow in winter before, did you Mr. Inhofe?) Don't you think that some scientist "loyal" to the church didn't step up and express doubt that Galileo's data was real? Don't you think some robed miscreant didn't make some suggestion to his "flock" that Galileo was "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture," (From the Inquisition's sentence of June 22, 1633) and suggest that Galileo was part of a conspiracy to promote this new-fangled "Copernican revolution" and call all our cherished beliefs into question? Don't you think they debated philosophy and the effect on the power of the hierarchy rather than debate the facts of Galileo's data? Don't you think they attempted to shame him and mock him for sticking to the data? If they found a 10 year old letter of his that said "hide the rotation", don't you think they would have waved it about claiming that he meant the rotation of the sun around the Earth, even if he was discussing his curveball delivery? And what would all that get them as far as the reality of planetary motion and solar system organization? Nothing.

What they didn't do, and what the priests and followers of denialism will not do, is abandon all of the BS and challenge Galileo's or climate science's data directly. They didn't produce any good science that refuted the claims and neither has the denialist movement in this century. Now because you are unable to produce any good data you blame the peer review process for not letting your ####### data through. Boo Hoo! And if the peer review let ####### through, well either way it's evidence for your belief system isn't it. Nice how that works with conspiracy thinking. Reality based thinking doesn't have that kind of win-win built into it.

So now you all can enlighten us. Why do you choose to refute the enormous body of data only with conspiracy theories? Why do you choose the tactics of 17th century clergy over rational debate about real data. The church saw the data as a threat to its power and its income stream. What threat do you perceive in climate data that makes you attack it like 17th century theists rather than 21st century rationalists?

Was it any better when they were patsy's for the Pontiff.

Missed the history of science after the 17th century did you? Check it out, it's a great story. Spoiler alert!: the pope didn't get involved much after that last episode you watched.

Your post seems to indicate that "science" is responsible for the poppy plant, from which "science" derived most of it's "addictive drugs". People used and abused various kinds of phytochemicals to mood alter or induce hallucinations for centuries and many became addicted even before science became involved.

But now we have the word of the highly regarded historians at Fox News tell us that the poppy, the peyote, jimson weed, all creations of science. Makes perfect sense in a Fox news sort of way.

http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/3...ath-of-science/

I, for one, appreciate the fact that you put that big "Idiocy" label at the bottom of these BS posts so no one is confused about exactly what you're posting.

Starting it off with reference to the make-believe "climategate" issue lets people know right off that you aren't dealing with anything remotely reality based, which is a good way to be sure no one thinks you're posting anything of any importance.

What you wedged between those 2 red-flags is a brilliant piece of intellectual dishonesty designed to delude those who are neither intellectual nor reality based. It is the standard rhetoric that whizzes over the head of the "why do I need to study science/logic/philosophy, I'll never use that in my life!" crowd.

But I commend you for labeling your work clearly as "idiocy" so that not too many fall prey to it.

Exactly! However, we are not talking about a simple polynomial here, but a series of simultaneous equations. Engineering problems mostly deal with x³ for static systems (dead load) and x⁴ for dynamic systems (live load). But, in the climatological models, you may be dealing with 100 or more dependent (variables that vary with the value of other variables) variables. Simplified weather equations can dependent on three or four variables, measured against time, and then the complexity of the model increases as you add more and more of those data sets. For instance, how many different locations do you want to place your sensors over a geographical area?

As an example, a simple 210 ft weather tower used to target incoming MRV's has wind speed, direction, barometric pressure, and temperate sensors at five different heights. That's 20 variables right there for a "linear" launch system.

That makes a lot of sense. If you have good data but too much of it, your little head becomes confused, so it isn't good data anymore. If you have a good model that takes into account a large number of variables that actually effect global climate, it is too complex for your little mind to comprehend so it must be wrong. Of course, this type of complex (accurate) modeling couldn't be done without the help of computers so then you will make some derogatory comment about computer models and call it a day. It has always been interesting to me that denialists scoff at the impossibility of modeling the many variables accurately but then also tend to latch on to suggestions that none of the variables matter except solar activity or cloud cover or isohaline flow. It is an amazingly inconsistent religious belief system.

The point that you really really work hard to ignore, in order to save your ideological beliefs, is that the test of the models is not

1) Whether you think they are too complex or not complex enough

2) Whether the variables exceed some number that you decide is "manageable"

3) Whether you can confuse weather with climate enough to create a straw man to argue to

The only measure of the models is whether or not they predict reality as measured objectively by scientific standards. What can be said is that they do predict the rise in mean global temperature quite well, although they are less accurate at predicting the year to year variations. as to the consequences of warming, they sadly seem to be underestimating the impact fairly dramatically as things are happening now which the models would have placed many years in the future.

What level of scientific training do you have that allows you to arrogantly proclaim that the accuracy of the model is moot if YOU FEEL there are too many variables in the model? As most denialists do and as all people arguing for their religious beliefs do, you skip over the simple facts about the models and the data in order to create bogus arguments that are only intended to create space for you to insert your religious beliefs/conspiracy theories about climate change. You seem to repeatedly make the same point (and I find this point being made by every denialist I've ever spoken to) that the accuracy of the models at predicting reality is completely irrelevant and that whether or not you personally can comprehend modeling such a complex system (without study or experience) is actually the basis for measuring science.

AND I would bet that any of you who do this would not even accept the same arguments from your children. If your kid was pouring milk and kept pouring until the cup overflowed and there was the milk cascading down the side of your table and there was your child saying

1) It isn't my responsibility because many factors may have been involved in affecting the "fullness" of the cup. Consider that a sudden shift in barometric pressure might have effected the density of the air that was being displaced. A decrease in solar activity could have cooled the cup causing it to contract and decreasing the size of space I had to pour into. Why it might have even decreased the size of some of the porous areas of the material that would have held some of the milk I poured. How could you possibly create a model of milk pouring that would possibly let you conclude that my pouring of milk into the cup was the major cause of milk leaving the cup? There are just too many variables for you to ever be sure! Even if you use a computer! Kids have been spilling milk ever since time began and there's been no problem! I dare you to compare the economic conditions after the great medieval milk spillings and the little milk drought that followed because that would be entirely relevant to your consideration of what to do about my milk spillings.

2) If I was responsible for pouring the milk, then how do you know for sure that it won't be a good thing? Maybe this table material will be substantially rejuvenated by the milk bath, maybe little Billy is calcium and vitamin D deficient and his life will be saved by licking at the floor, maybe an entire colony of beneficial microorganisms will grow on the floor and create better health for all of us. You have to look beyond all the cleaning up of my mess and highly likely negative consequencesto see the unlikely, implausible, yet remotely possible benefits of my even now continuing to pour the milk into the full cup.

What is your response? "Good point"? "I'm glad you've been listening to me discuss climate change and caught on"? "That's my good little Sophist"?

What you return to repeatedly is not an evaluation of the actual models or their accuracy but a discussion of whether individual denialist's without specific training or knowledge of climate science "buy it". You evaluate climate science based on its concordance with your belief system and not on its concordance with reality. In doing so you sound like the Bishop who declared to Galileo that to believe that the Earth orbits the Sun is as incomprehensible as if one were to believe that Jesus was not born of a virgin. The comparison is to your beliefs and not to the actual science or to reality. I would presume that there are many people in less developed areas of the world who would be surprised and amazed if we told them that we take kidneys from one person and put them in other people who don't have functioning kidneys. Many of them would probably disbelieve us because it doesn't fit with their worldview. Does their disbelief change the fact that we do kidney transplants? Does it make it impossible? Of course not. Your beliefs have no greater power than theirs.

So, if you feel that I have mischaracterized your stance, then please, give us the reference to the paper describing the specific published model that you believe is inaccurate and let's all have a chance to review it and then you tell us specifically and with reference to reality and not beliefs, why you think that model is inaccurate. You can show us that you are correct about how many variables can be modeled and you can explain for us why the model anomalously predicts reality when there is no way that it could. That discussion would actually be helpful rather than hearing the sad, ignorant denialist belief system recanted again.

You don't think it's import that Algore has a following similar to David Koresh, Jim Jones, and that guy that cut everybody's nuts off before they committed suicide waiting for to the comet to take them to Jupiter?

Not really skilled at staying on point, eh? BTW, you left Jesus off the list.

They focused on pneumonia and sepsis infections—both frequent results of improper care in hospital settings—

Interesting that the assumption here is that seriously ill, often immunocompromised patients, while highly susceptible to infectious disease wherever they are, are miraculously protected from infectious diseases in hospitals, unless someone provides "improper care."

How would we react to the same assumption if we charged that every mother who brings in a sick child must have "improperly cared" for the child since they developed an infectious disease while under their care. We'd have an awful lot of kids in foster care.

But we are so like Gods that infectious organisms should never slip past our great care right? That's why infectious diseases died out so long ago with no where to reproduce.

All birth certificates supplied should be the long form but they are only needed from visa applicants. Since your adults are not applying for visas, they will not be needed until or unless they do.

I'm surprised you would say that pushbrk as the certificate that our Chinese spouses obtain, while "long" because of the attached translation and government certification (the equivalent of what we would call an Apostille) contains only the information about our spouses that is commonly displayed on what is now called the "short form" in the language of the cult of the long form.

I am not sure if this information is posted anywhere but I was wondering on one of the forms that you have to fill out for the packet 3 to submit it had said to list all your children even if they are not accompanying you. It then stated below in small print that I would require birth certificates of all the children listed. I had asked my lawyer if I was required to obtain the long version for two of my children who are not moving with me, (they are in college in other cities). My lawyer had not heard of anyone needing these before, but with the way my visa journey has gone thus far I am making sure I have more information then less. I figured if anyone would have this information it would be someone on this site.

Hopefully someone out there has this information, I am a basket case waiting for our interview and want to make sure that I have everything.

What has come to be known as the "long form" or "long version" is just the information that states collect on births. What has come to be known as the "short form" is a political fabrication and what has always been known previously as a "birth certificate." That form certifies that the state has indeed collected the information and registered you at the time of your birth. If they put more information on the form, it would still be a paper that certifies that your birth was registered in that time and place to those parents. The official certificate of birth (in some states labeled "certificate of live birth" since they also register stillbirths) is all that you ever need for any immigration purpose. If your name is Obama, the rules could be different.

Other countries have a variety of ways of obtaining/presenting birth certificates. It is highly likely that if you ask in a country other than the US about long forms and short forms they won't know what you are talking about as the "cult of the long form" is a uniquely American phenomenon.

While on the topic of Facebook a friend of mine lives in Edmonton, Ca. His status is:

These folks could use a little global warming in their lives...

If one is not intelligent enough to know that local weather and global climate are different things entirely, than one is probably best served staying silent rather than parading that ignorance around like it is a badge of honor. Wouldn't it be minimally prudent to be able to define weather and global climate and at least know the difference between the two before offering your brilliant scientific conclusions based on 1 night in Edmonton.

So all you have accomplished here is to broadcast to everyone who stumbles upon this thread that you don't have the mental acuity needed to distinguish "the planet Earth" from "the city of Edmonton." BTW, Is there really an Edmonton, California that is that cold or did you mean Edmonton, Alberta, Canada? I guess whatever city it is, if it appears to be a planet to you, it wouldn't fit into any of our states or Canada's provinces.

Did you stop to think before posting this that 98% of kindergarten students could tell you the difference between the planet Earth and the city of Edmonton? Do you realize that those same kindergarten students would be able to tell you that it is cold in Canada in the winter but you are apparently unaware of this simple fact about the world. Do you have some reference to actual climate science that predicts the winter won't be cold in Edmonton in 2010? Of course not because actual climate science makes no such claim or prediction. If Edmonton has a really hot day in the summer will you find that is evidence for global climate change? Are you willing to commit to your own astute observations and admit that if Edmonton has 1 very hot day this summer, you will accept that global climate change theory has been proven?

So, if in order to support your belief system, you have to maintain your knowledge level and awareness of the world you live in below the level of a Kindergarten student, what does that say about your religious beliefs about climate? Take an objective look at your belief system for a few moments. Purchase a globe. This is a model of the planet Earth. WARNING: It is not actual size. The actual planet is much bigger. The actual surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 square kilometers, which is 196,940,400 square miles. The city of Edmonton (assuming Alberta, Canada) is 684 square kilometers or 264 square miles. Look at Edmonton on your globe. Notice how much smaller it is THAN the globe. The surface area of Edmonton is actually around one one thousandth of one percent of the total surface area of the globe. Can you see how small a number that is. Now when you start talking about global yearly temperatures that 1 night represents less than 1/365th of what we are talking about on the time scale. Can you see how 1/365 is very much less than 1? That is what Kindergarten students would call a very small number.

Here's the really great part. That thing you bought is called a globe! That can help you to remember that what we refer to in climate science is GLOBAL warming. Do you see how similar the words are? Globe; Global. Now what you referred to was 1 night in Edmontonial cooling. Do you see that if climate science were referring to that than we'd be debating "1 night in Edmontonial weather change" and not "Global Climate Change". I think they use that phrase to make it relatively easy to follow. Maybe there is a Kindergarten student in your neighborhood who has a globe and could help you understand this planet vs city differentiation that is getting in the way of you understanding what is being discussed.

Especially if you are going to express strong opinions on the topic, you ought to at least have the difference between cities and planets down pretty clearly in your head. Otherwise, you just look foolish because, frankly, most people know the difference between a city in Canada and the planet. Outside of your religion, it is very hard to be taken seriously when you are unable to distinguish planets from cities. I certainly hope you don't leave home without a GPS! That could be dangerous. You could get lost on Mars or Saskatchewan, they look a lot alike!

This is more out of curiosity than anything, since we're having trouble coming up with some answers.

We were thinking, for the sake of taking some extra time to save money and plan things without being rushed, that we would go through a small, civil ceremony by ourselves within the 90 days of the K1 Visa to become legally married (sometime in 2011, we're expecting; we haven't filed yet and won't until April or May as we're waiting on a final divorce decree) and then have a bigger, more traditional ceremony with our family and friends in spring/early summer of 2012.

Our questions come during that in-between period after the civil ceremony but before the big ceremony. We would be legally married after the civil ceremony and it certainly isn't going to be a secret, but socially, among family and friends, should we refer to each other as husband/wife or fiance/fiancee until the big ceremony?

Luckily Emily Post is here to put your mind at ease! I believe in this time it is most correct refer to one another as Flubenstork and Flubenstein. Fluben being the German word for one who has married but not yet drunk to excess before their new in-laws, and the stork and stein, of course, indicators of gender. Anything else would be a huge social faux pas! Don't be surprised if you are excluded from polite company if you use any other terms to address one another in this period of time!

Do I start using his name after the civil ceremony or do I wait until the bigger ceremony? Which day should be considered our anniversary?

You should start using half of his last name after the civil ceremony and add the other half after the larger ceremony. If his family name has an odd number of characters, add the larger number of characters after the big ceremony. If splitting your fiance's family name in half results in a word usually considered an expletive, then one should not leave the house until the large ceremony is completed. You don't want to be announced at the ball until you can be know to the world as Mrs Stanley Shithens!

US Civil code actually requires that persons who have completed dual wedding ceremonies observe an anniversary "fiesta" that begins, annually of course, on the date of the civil ceremony and culminates on the date of the big ceremony with fireworks and the drinking of the traditional Taboshkin, a drink distilled from all vegetable waste materials accumulated during the festival. In between, there are days of compulsory fasting as well as the highly popular "days of the naked dancing" for which a Beetlebob, the traditional American naked dancing stage must be constructed on your front lawn. (See the VJ guides for detailed instructions on the construction of the the Beetlebob) Take care to observe the law carefully, as the fines for deviating from the prescribed functions can be substantial. The fines for skipping the naked dancing days are particularly steep. As we always say here at VJ, it pays to follow the law to the letter. Although I must caution that the local police have indicated that, while my wife is encouraged to participate in the days of naked dancing, I would actually be severely fined for joining her. So I guess local customs may vary.

I hope that is helpful and sets your mind at ease concerning American customs for the dually married. And yes, my wife and I are among the doubly ceremonied. We are looking forward to our upcoming anniversary fiesta and I hope you'll all come help with the building of the Beetlebob!

Yes, we realize some of these questions might be a little neurotic but that's kind of how we roll.

WHAT?! Neurotic?! No way!!! Good questions!!

We were hoping for some input from everyone (general opinions, what would you do if it was you, how would you feel if it was a friend/family member) and especially interested in hearing from other people who've gone this route.

Thanks guys,

-K

Damn am I really that screwed?? So her mother being mental and the info not being disclosed after the marriage has no weight huh? What if she agrees to go back to her country and I get a divorce then? Would that work? Help me out here guys!!

Well she told you her mother suffered from the mental illness which is known as depression but you claim that she never told you her mother suffered from a mental illness. That will be a tough one to complain about. Since she did tell you that her mother suffered from a mental illness. If you do want to claim for some reason that she didn't tell you, it would probably be best to omit the part of the story where she told you.

One must be in THE CLUB to be critical of THE CLUB, being a nuclear physicist .... is meaningless.

(Just repeating what I've been told)

1. ANYONE can be critical of "THE CLUB"

2. ONLY a person who was either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant would propose that every person's criticism carries the same weight.

3. Ideologues assume that the "credentials" required to substantiate one's critique is that said critique agrees with their position of ignorance

4. Scientists, and other rationalists/non-religious thinkers assume that an entirely different set of criteria are required to substantiate one's critique

Those criteria being a) the critic is backed with sound data derived from reliable sources b) the critic follows rational and reasonable logical pathways from that data to reach reasonable conclusions on the subject being critiqued.

5. Because our criteria for defining "believable" critique are so diametrically opposed, the rationalists will never convince the denialists that their criteria for evaluating critique should be objective rather than subjective. Objectively critiqueing their ideological stance would force them to abandon it, which they will never do because faith is more important than rational knowledge of reality for all religious thinkers, including denialists.

That being said, the above critique, by someone who is supposedly a nuclear physicist (I mean he says so on the internet. You couldn't say that on the internet if it wasn't true, right?) is just incredible . Why he even challenges the mass of data accumulated since Ahrennius published the first model of anthropogenic climate warming in 1896 with references to (gasp) Wikipedia! How could anyone expect that 114 years of accumulated, reproducible scientific data could stand up to something as powerful and all-knowing as Wikipedia.

It makes it abundantly more entertaining however to look at Dr. Heinz Lycklama's accumulated work. His treatises and lectures on creationism and his brilliant "critiques" of evolution are just as ideologically pure as his scathing, brilliant despite being entirely false, take down of climate science. I especially enjoyed his powerpoint presentation laying out his rationale for why the bible is a reliable scientific source. In fact, my sides are still aching from the laughter and I blame all of you for the stuff I spit all over my monitor. You made me google this fool.

But, still, for those who find ideology more comforting than reality, he is a master of making false arguments sound true to the true believers. He is...a preacher and he preaches the mythology of his religion with fervor. He is obviously someone whose ideologic slant on climate science would be much more valuable then say, someone who studied climate science (science being the key word) all their life. We should definitely discount those who have studied climate all their life because, frankly, they probably haven't studied the bible as intensely as the doctor who likes llamas. They have only studied reality and the realities of climate change. Reality is a useless concept to the ideologue and they project upon the rational thinkers their own tendency to replace reality with their ideologic fairy tales.

Alas, there is a difference between data and logic as opposed to ideological rhetoric. It is good to note however that the less you ACTUALLY know about a subject the harder it is to distinguish rational conclusions based on sound data from ideological rhetoric. One might find more value here in reading Dr David Dunning's work at Cornell that demonstrates how assessment of our competence in a field goes up in proportion to our lack of competence in that field than in reading Like-A-Llama's drivel.

If you truly believe this man's BS then please tell me your solution to this dilemma.

You are rushed to the emergency room with a high fever and severe pain in the Rt lower abdomen. You are examined by a surgeon and a CT of the abdomen is done. The surgeon informs you that both his exam and the CT confirm that you have an acute appendicitis, in fact, one that is quite swollen and could burst at any moment. He recommends immediate emergency surgery and leaves to arrange for an OR. He informs you that delaying the surgery could result in much more serious illness or even death.

While he is gone a gentleman wanders into your room and identifies himself as a "nuclear physicist". He informs you that "acute appendicitis" doesn't really exist and has several references to Wikipedia that agree with him. He makes reference to some of the medical literature on appendicitis and says some scientific sounding stuff about it that you really don't have the training to understand, let alone effectively evaluate as to whether or not he knows what he is talking about, but he sounds smart and maybe since he knows big medical words, you might assume he knows something about appendicitis (at your own peril). He tells you that he snuck in to look at your CT scan, a rather confusing array of shadows on a computer screen, and he is certain that the radiologist who read it and the surgeon who reviewed it (who do this every day, it's their job) are wrong. You don't have appendicitis and you should go home and have a beer and a big meal and relax.

At that point, the surgeon returns to the room and announces that an OR is ready. You have to make a choice. Whose opinion will you give more weight to, the surgeon who has seen this just about every day of his career, backed up by the objective data on the CT, interpreted for you by the expert who has spent his life learning to decipher the shadows on that study OR the nuclear physicist who tells you he is really sure that even though he has no training in medicine or surgery that he's figured out the "correct" answer on his own, possibly with the help of a secret bible code that proves that evolution is the work of the devil.

All the denialists are going home for a beer, right? or not? Is the answer different when you remove your ideological context? Please do let me know. I really am interested in the answers.

I'd be interested to hear people's rationale for why that 18 year old who has intimate consensual contact with his 17 year old gf should not enjoy the same rights as other USCs.

It would also be interesting to hear whether any of the people denouncing "sex offenders" in general might actually be one of those people who had sex with an underage gf after their own 18th birthday but wasn't prosecuted. Did you report yourself to USCIS when you filed your petition? Will you now send back your fiance/e or wife since you have improperly enjoyed a right that no one who has committed such a heinous act should enjoy?

Just wondering.

Very true.

Likewise: If a child is taught that it's always someone else that is to blame, they fail to learn to take responsibility for their actions and circumstances.

Likewise: If a person learns to only be able to deal with the world by simplifying it into talking points and prejudices, they have difficulty evaluating reality without cramming it into one of their preconceived generalizations about the world.

I don't believe in stock responses from a formula in a book. Each child is different, each sistuation is different. If you start looking for a book to provide you with answers, you are in trouble. I guess the idea of the book is to give you 'indicators' of good parenting techniques, but still...

yes, one can learn to be a telephone operator from a book or how to build a rocket that goes to the moon but when it comes to parenting it is always best to pull something out of your *ss based on your own past experience which you have no way to evaluate as good or bad and assume to be the way to do things. Of course, that means we treat parenting like the most unimportant job in the world but we can defend that approach by ignoring the evidence that certain approaches are demonstrably better than others and and justify the "winging it is best for unimportant jobs like parenting model" with a non-sequiter like "all kids are different" (amazing discovery there) and all situations are different.

In other words, I couldn't possible learn to make lentil soup from a recipe because all pots are different and all stoves are different, therefore it is best not to bother learning to make lentil soup. Makes sense.