No, I would rather have PLANNED PARENTHOOD telling CHILDREN about the realities of sex as they relate to GETTING PREGNANT – including sexually transmitted diseases, since they can harm a woman’s fertility. It’s not Planned SEX.
I would also like to see Planned Parenthood REQUIRED to have a parent in the room with the child, every single time. They have absolutely no right, legal or moral, to act in loco parentis for my daughters or sons.
December 17, 2013 at 8:55am
This article is not at all accurate. Google provides ample opportunity for writers to redact as much of their work as they wish from Google Books, up to the entire content. It also provides multiple links for people to purchase the entire work, if they so wish.
As a writer, reader, and researcher, I have used Google Books since its very rocky inception (when much of what the author of this article says was true.) I have found it to be invaluable for many reasons. It provides easy access to out-of-copyright books; helps rediscover books that have long been out of print; and helps me quickly and efficiently determine which books will provide me with information I need. I’ve also used it to pinpoint specific passages in books I already own so I can more easily cite them.
Google Books could even work to a smart writer’s advantage. For instance, the text in GB is searchable in the same way a web page might be. That means a writer who is careful about the SEO in his book, placing a few carefully-chosen keywords near the front, can bring his or her book to the top in relevant searches, creating a sales advantage. As people use online services more and more for book purchases, this technique has the potential to increase, not decrease, a writer’s profits.
In short, Google Books is just like any tool: subject to misuse, but also capable of great good. Smart writers and publishers will keep that in mind and learn to maximize the good.
August 8, 2013 at 8:34am
How is this impossible? This theory makes a lot of sense, and Jarrett has been a de facto deputy to the President since his first inauguration. Just because it’s not legal does not mean it’s not possible.
July 26, 2013 at 12:50am
But if you got into that Toyota and took a MP3 player, thinking it was yours – then the owner caught up with you and you refused to turn it or its equivalent value back over – baby, that’s theft, as soon as you refuse to give it back.
July 26, 2013 at 12:48am
Time to lawyer up and sue them for the $18K plus emotional pain and suffering and punitive damages. I’d also look into the possibility of criminal charges with the state’s attorney office. Sounds like that sheriff is in bed with the bank.
July 25, 2013 at 1:33am
He has two kids and the family lives where crazy people are threatening Zimmerman’s PARENTS’ lives. I’m a strong conservative, and I completely believe the court reached the right verdict – but I have four kids at home. I would probably make the same decision, though I’d feel terrible about it.
July 24, 2013 at 2:47pm
No, they can’t. That was established when blacks fought discrimination with sit-ins at the Woolworth soda counter.
That said, a bar is a special case and should be treated as such. When you go to a bar, you’re consuming the social atmosphere as much as you are the beer. Someone who likes relaxed neighborhood bars probably won’t be too comfortable at a biker bar, for instance. If the bar’s been a gay hangout and the new owner wants to change that social atmosphere, it’s an imperative for the success of his business that he discourages gays from coming there for socialization and hookups.
Sadly, he’s going to lose in court.
July 16, 2013 at 12:09am
Soybomb, this conservative woman will just say to you what liberal women have said to conservative men for thirty years – you don’t have a uterus therefore you don’t have a right to an opinion.
July 16, 2013 at 12:06am
Sex ed does not prevent unwanted pregnancy, and it does encourage premarital sex among kids who may well not be ready for it. Thanks, but I’ll educate my children on the reality of sex myself – and I’ll have better outcomes than a relatively anonymous generic classroom course ever could.
July 15, 2013 at 11:33pm
And Obama was somehow a better choice? When you have a choice between Bad and Worse, you vote BAD. Sitting out does not absolve you, nor do you avoid the consequences of the vote overall.
July 15, 2013 at 9:36pm
There are. Had mine at 20 after a dear older friend convinced me not to abort. Today, he’s a brilliant young man fresh out of the Marines, enrolled in college on the GI bill. It was awful – but I never took welfare, never had housing assistance, nothing except WIC for a short time for my boy. I would never have been rewarded with the life I now have if I’d made a different choice – I might be wealthier, but not richer.
Thank you for your choice. There is a special place in heaven for you.
March 26, 2013 at 2:38pm
Remarkably, half the DNA of a baby is from a guy. Fancy that.
If you think guys don’t have a right to voice an opinion on abortion because they don’t get pregnant, then I guess they don’t have a responsibility to take care of a child they never wanted to begin with, right?
Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand. When you divorce them from one another, things start falling apart. I WANT guys to speak out about how they feel about abortion because giving them no right ensures they feel they have no subsequent responsibility.
(FTR, I CHOSE to be the mom of five)
December 24, 2012 at 9:24am
O-kay. So he can talk about his pants bulging, but she can’t wear revealing clothes. And I’m not sure how revealing those clothes really were – no one here has specified.
On the other hand, she didn’t find his behavior particularly offensive? And it sounds like she was flirting back, with the “father figure” boss. Who talked about the bulge in his pants.
This whole thing smells fishy and very, very sleazy.
December 17, 2012 at 1:21pm
Turbocat: that’s why I’m eatin’ popcorn and waiting for the fight to begin. If it goes beyond two boys saying, “Well, I’ll larn you!” and drawing lines in the dirt with their toes, this could be good.
December 16, 2012 at 11:35am
**(Sorry, this was to Not A Crazy below)
response to children like this. In fact, they need firmly structured homes with strict rules. If he wasn’t getting that, and if in a home filled with guns and survivalist rhetoric he had started obsessing about shooting others who were a threat to him, then I can easily see why he would respond by going to a school and doing what he did.
I’m not excusing it. But you can’t blame everyone else with similar problems for it, and you can’t lock them all up. We don’t have enough facilities in the world to lock them up, anyway. What you can do is help out relatives who may be having trouble with their own troubled children – not by offering unsolicited advice, but by offering to relieve them as caregivers from time to time.
There is no easy solution. There is also no way to keep your children safe 100% of the time. They can be killed in a million ways: stray gang bullet, drunk drivers (and you can’t lock all those up either, unfortunately), terrorists, wrong place at the wrong time. All you can do is look for places you might be able to help before terrible things happen, and pray that God grants you the wisdom and courage to act when you see those places.
December 16, 2012 at 11:11am
and what will you do with those who are not mentally insane to keep them from killing and killing and killing? This is NOT a case that should color your impression of all mentally disturbed people.
I have a son who has PDD/NOS. He is just a hair shy of Asperger’s. I have a milder case of what he has myself. These children obsess over things; in his case, it’s a harmless obsession with medieval knights and similarly themed video games.
I read these descriptions of the shooter and his mom, and it gives me chills. *I* used to have to pick up my son from a Connecticut school when he had withdrawn, growling, under a desk. *I* had to deal with his sometimes-violent outbursts in public. I was perhaps fortunate. Because I understood a little of what he was going through, I found a way to break through to him, get him to care and feel. My husband, who is not his natural father, has always been brilliant with him, loving and caring but strict enough to give him firm boundaries.
What was the problem with the shooter? I don’t know. It was not simply autism, or a personality disorder, or the presence of guns in the house, or some hatred he still bore toward his school, or something his mother had done. I suspect part of it was the absence of his father – not just after the divorce, but before, when he was likely working long hours in the city away from home to build his career. It may also have been a lack of boundaries, something that might seem to be a good response to (cont
December 10, 2012 at 3:10pm
Priscilla King – YES. That 7yo child could harm another child or an adult. A gun is an equalizer – it can kill whoever is on the wrong end of it. If a child was threatening someone with a gun and I really thought he’d pull the trigger, even accidentally – I’d do what it took. Then I’d deal with the guilt and nightmares later.
These little punks probably won’t make 18, frankly. Not unless Mom and/or Dad gets a clue.
December 5, 2012 at 2:03pm
This isn’t wrongfull termination, autozone had a 0 tollerance policy with regards to guns, he violated that policy it’s a pretty clear he was fired for just cause.
Of course it wasn’t wrongful termination. But me shopping elsewhere because Autozone has a stupid policy is also not wrongful. You needn’t follow company rules off a cliff; in certain cases – like, say, saving lives – they can and should be bent.
November 19, 2012 at 2:56pm
@The Jerk: You said, “CatB, I agree, but only if they show the many more Palestinian civilians killed. It’s called fair and balanced.”
Are you talking about the Palestinian civilians who keep miraculously rising from the dead on camera? Or are you talking about the ones who actually died in Syria? Clarify these things for us.
October 27, 2012 at 6:32pm
This is idiotic. Most states have laws like this; it basically means that those officiants are able to sign off on your marriage certificate, and that’s all.
When my husband and I got married, he was posted in Pensacola and we both lived there, but we wanted to have his uncle, a Kentucky pastor, marry us. I had a friend who was a notary public sign the certificate a couple days early, then we went to Kentucky and had our ceremony. The state paperwork, which is the only thing the state has jurisdiction over, is totally different from the ceremony – though many people combine the two, it’s not necessary at all.