Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 14, 2014 at 12:36 AM in reply to: OT: Californian’s laugh as Man Attacked by Shark – Video #776560
CA renter
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/snow-white-doesnt-live-here-anymore/201304/laughing-the-scary-stuff-humor-and-fear
why do my kids think it’s hilarious to scare me?
fear and its safe resoltuion must be encoded deep in our DNA under HAHA![/quote]
Yes! We anxiety-filled, nervous types just have better imaginations! 😉
Personally, I’ve never found someone else’s fear to be funny in any way. It scares me when people laugh at others who are clearly distressed. Likewise, I’ve never understood how people could laugh at “funny” videos of people getting hurt. Pretty sick if you ask me.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
They get a double tax-exemption. Not only are their net profits not subject to income tax, contributions made by donors are deductible for many people. In some localities, real estate owned by religious organizations are exempt from property taxes.While calculations of the dollar value of these exemptions is difficult, it’s been estimated the cost of religious tax exemptions is as high as $71,000,000,000 per year. That’s double the amount spent on the two largest tax subsidies for other industries (financial and utilities).[/quote]
Very true!
Participant[quote=UCGal]I have a friend who’s a social worker for Catholic Social Services. They know she is not Catholic and never will be.
That said – part of her job is assisting low income women/families… she is not allowed to bring up the topic of family planning at all. She does answer questions when asked specifically – but cannot volunteer information of any kind. That’s part of working for a social services agencies that is managed by the Catholic Church, but funded in part, by the US government. Obviously birth control is legal, and there are clinics that make it available at low cost for low income folks – but she can’t talk about it unless very directly asked. Even then, it’s discouraged. If the agency were privately funded, then they could even eliminate answering a direct question.
Now – to the question at hand. I don’t think any employer should be allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Obviously there are exceptions to this for actual churches (not just church affiliated agencies) – but churches themselves, don’t get federal funds. The Catholic church is free to ban women from the priesthood, etc. They are free to disallow gay priests (yeah, good luck with that one.)
But employers who are not actual churches should not be allowed to discriminate – and that should include gender identity. They can establish dress codes etc to make sure that gender identity is not overt… as long as it is applied evenly to gay and straight alike.[/quote]
Don’t forget the church’s tax-exempt status. That’s a tax expenditure, so one could argue that they do get federal funds.
Wouldn’t it be funny if they could be forced to abide by non-discrimination laws since they are partially publicly funded? I’d love to see that. Then, they could put their money where their mouths are and opt to pay taxes instead of “contributing to an immoral lifestyle” by hiring gays and others whose lifestyles they disapprove of. 😉
July 12, 2014 at 3:15 AM in reply to: OT: Californian’s laugh as Man Attacked by Shark – Video #776453Participant[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=zk]
Having not seen a reasonable answer from you on any subject ever, I doubt I’ll get one now. But I am curious how you get fromthey’re laughing as a shark swims near a swimmer
to
I believe they’re native Californians.[/quote]No, you certainly won’t get a good answer from paramount. The actual answer is that paramount is a bigot. We can add “native Californians” to Jews, gays, and Guatemalan children on the long list of groups that paramount has a problem with, and that all contribute somehow to his immense self-pity.[/quote]
You forgot teachers, cops, firefighters, etc. 😉
Participant[quote=SK in CV]you didn’t mention your price range, but if you can afford it, Del Mar, has all those things.[/quote]
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Not sure about it being down-to-earth, or having large enough lots, but for a wealthier area with a “downtown village” area, I can’t think of another place that comes close to Del Mar, other than La Jolla, but don’t think that’s as good for kids as most of the people there seem to be on the older end of the spectrum (Del Mar, too, but there are some younger areas).
Have to agree with spdrun, too, though. If you’re looking for very good schools, large lots (3/4 acre+), large homes that are not “cookie-cutter” houses, AND a more down-to-earth vibe…not sure that it’s really possible to find in Southern California, to be honest.
Participant[quote=SD Squatter]If history is going to repeat, then:
Read more:
CNBC Confused As To Why Interest Rates Are Falling
TFTB – Likely Rates Will Continue To Fall[/quote]
Great articles. Thank you, SD Squatter.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]BG, I hope that you have good luck with your biopsy result as well!
Since your dad died from melanoma, do they have you on a high-risk examination schedule, or do you just go in when something comes up?[/quote]
I’ve actually only had 2 small moles in my entire life. Both of them changed and now both have been removed. I had a squamous cell carcinoma taken off my bicep (arm) back in the ’80’s.
I don’t work outside like my dad did and am very careful in the sun. I even apply sunscreen constantly on road trips to avoid getting too much sun through the windshield.
I hadn’t been to this dermatologist since 2009 (they told me yesterday, lol) and have seen him about 4-5 times. None of those visits were related to skin cancer. For example, I was one of the first people to use PUVA lights to treat hand eczema back in the late ’80’s.
So, no, I’m not on a high-risk examination schedule for melanoma. But I do pay attn to my skin because I spent all the summers of my youth boating and waterskiing and there was no “SPF” put in sunscreen back then. Most of what was on the market was equivalent to SPF 2 or 4, the tanning oils had zero SPF and “Coppertone Shade” was roughly equivalent to SPF 15. There were just a handful of brands and types available then compared to what we have today. We even put a few drops of iodine in a bottle of baby oil to add color and applied it all over to “lay out” and bake ourselves in the sun :=0
I’m suffering for those sins today in various ways.
My favorite suntan lotion back then was “Sea and Ski” due to its scent :)[/quote]
Yes, I totally remember those days. We’d only use SPF 4 at the beginning of summer to get that “base coat” (AKA: first sunburn of the year). Some of us are now paying dearly for our the foolish decisions we’ve made in our youth. At least we can teach our children from our mistakes…if they’ll listen to us.
Participant[quote=carlsbadworker]This beats all the previous stories:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/10/cynk-technology-stock_n_5573862.html%5B/quote%5D
Yes, that’s a good one. 🙂
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
San Diego County had enough positive attributes during ALL of its history to attract “newcomers” without having to “lure” them with a constant supply of new construction to choose from. If they want to be here bad enough, they will find a place to live. If they don’t, or don’t want to live in what SD County has to offer, then they won’t move here. It’s their choice. These are the housing conditions in the SF Bay coastal counties and other, more rural but pristine CA counties as well and none of them are going to go BK or lose their population solely because their leaders were good stewards of their environment and thus created a great place to live for their residents. As it should be.[/quote]
It’s not the housing that lured them, it’s the weather, the job prospects, and the image of California that lured them…and all the people before them since the indigenous people of what we now call California. I’m sure the indigenous people would have loved to keep you (and me and everyone else here) out, too, but that’s not how it works, (un)fortunately.
As a native Southern Californian, I have also seen all the overbuilding and the decimation of once-beautiful scenery. The neighborhood in which I grew up was once surrounded by orange groves, corn fields, and strawberry fields that we could play hide-and-seek in at night…not to mention the glorious views from the mountaintops which we would have to hike to because there were no roads. Now, it’s all developed: those hills that were free for us locals to use are now gated developments with expensive homes — they’ll call security the second you step out of your car up there; and those agricultural fields and groves are now condos, hotels, and high-rise offices. I don’t like it, but accept it as a condition of living in such a desirable place.
I also know that while it might be nice for my descendants to inherit property worth a gazillion dollars, this gain would come at the expense of all the families who would have to pay the exorbitant prices that would exist without new development…and I’m just not cool with that.
You say that the newcomers can just move out to the desert or some other far-flung place with cheaper housing and lower-density development, but it goes both ways. People who don’t like all the density and new developments can move to fly-over country to live on a farm, if space is what they’re looking for. Nobody should expect someone else to pay through the nose so that existing homeowners can enjoy ever-rising housing prices and a nice view of the hills over there. That is nobody else’s duty or obligation, not the government’s nor the families who are just looking for a home in which to live and raise their children.
And Mello-Roos taxes are a boon to the old-time land owners and developers. The land owners get to sell to the developers at an inflated price because the cost of infrastructure development isn’t deducted from the price of the land. The developers also get to sell homes for more than they otherwise would because the cost of the homes aren’t discounted as much as they would be if the cost of the infrastructure were factored into the total price (the “how much a month” club never seems to care much about total price). The benefits of MR are shared between these two parties, and the hapless and hopeless new buyers continue to overpay because financing these costs over decades “makes it more affordable.” 🙁
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=UCGal]We did it. For me – my family risk of cancer made me want to know. My husbands family leans torwards heart disease and stroke… As well as some family history of dementia. If we had the increased risks we wanted to know to address bucket list things sooner than later. For the most part we got good news… No increased risks.
For the biggies, you have to go through several locks to make sure you really wanted to know. Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, colon cancer, breast cancer.
As far as the family and genetic stuff… My husband has connected with several 3rd cousins in the old country…. (He chose to respond to the anonomyzed inquiries… And was able to trace back the common ancestor.). That’s been cool and we’ll probably meet them when we next go across the pond. Less luck on my side.
It was worth the $99 to us.[/quote]
Since this thread started we discovered something else from the 23andMe data that was impactful for our family. We found that we all (husband, me, kids) have variations of the MTHFR mutation. One son has a homozygous mutation of the C677T marker – which means his body produces a less effective version of the enzyme that breaks down folate. The rest of us have the heterozygous mutation – so we partially break down folate, but less effectively than folks with natural form of the gene. Folate needs to be broken down to cross the blood/brain barrier and is used to regulate neurotransmitters (seratonin, dopamine, melatonin, etc.). We now take OTC vitamins in the methylized form of the b vitamins.
Huge big deal to find an obscure but impactful problem.[/quote]
I love the information you bring to this blog, UCGal. Thank you!
I’m going to get tested for this since we have a lot of these symptoms in our family…that might be one of the reasons we have such a high cancer rate, too. Many thanks to you, UCGal.
One of my best friends tested positive for this mutation (not sure about the specific one) after she had a stroke in her late 30s. Apparently, some/one of these mutations can increase the risk for stroke, too.
ParticipantBG, I hope that you have good luck with your biopsy result as well!
Since your dad died from melanoma, do they have you on a high-risk examination schedule, or do you just go in when something comes up?
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
[quote=CA renter]
It shouldn’t cost $1,000 for this. It should be no more than $400-$500, and that’s on the high side, including pathology. [/quote]Good to know… I think people should discuss medical bills more like they discuss car prices. Just because insurance pays doesn’t mean we should be wasteful.
Part of being healthy is understanding how the medical system works.
[/quote]
Agreed. I hate the opaque nature of medical billing. The prices should be up on a billboard at the doctor’s office, and on their websites, as well. Personally, I don’t think anyone should be able to get “negotiated discounts.” That’s a scam, and it makes the most vulnerable people (cash patients — those with no insurance, but some assets) pay the highest prices of all.
Let the prices be whatever they want them to be, but they should be fully transparent to all.
ParticipantWhat, exactly, would be the hate crime? Not sure about the meaning of your last sentence.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
MR bonds DO NOT PAY for ongoing municipal/county services to a development. They only pay for the initial construction of municipal/county facilities and schools which will be used by this new population. A brand new empty police substation, branch libary or school is worthless without humans to staff it.
The sole cause of this “boom-bust” cycle causing fiscal instability to many jurisdictions of this state is undoubtedly too many approved subdivisions.[/quote]
Right, but even when not taking MR or special bonds into consideration, the new housing developments almost always bring more money, per household, into the city’s coffers via regular property taxes because of Prop 13. So, if the new developments aren’t paying their way, then the old residents paying their (highly subsidized by the new taxpayers) Prop 13 taxes sure aren’t, either.
-
AuthorPosts
