HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » HeiressofBickworth » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »

HeiressofBickworth

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Current location: Snohomish County, WA
Member since: Wed May 18, 2011, 02:12 AM
Number of posts: 1,942

About Me

Retired corporate paralegal.

Journal Archives

I dread the morning (UPDATE) (FINAL)

Her name was Nija; we called her Ni-Ni or Ninny. She was completely black. She was a gift to my daughter and granddaughter from friends of my daughter who live in Vancouver BC. Nija was smuggled into the US under a coat on my daughter's lap; an undocumented immigrant. She never was a big kitty-- only weighed 9 pounds at her prime. She was about 4.5 at the end. She was a lovely pet and companion for my granddaughter. Son-in-law and Granddaughter took her to the vet this morning. She became so much of a hermit in the last couple of weeks, I don't think the other animals have figured out that she is actually gone. We have three other cats, age 5, and a dog age 1. Although it's nice to have the other animals, each one is an individual with her own characteristics and we will miss Ni-Ni very much.

Thanks for letting me share this with you. Kisses and hugs to your pets.








We have an old kitty -- she's about 19. She is little and frail and has had a couple of episodes in the past year where we weren't sure she was going to be with us much longer. But she's still here. The last couple of days she has been sleeping a lot under a bed by the heat register. Usually she jumps up on the bed to sleep by my side. Tonight when I went to my room, she came out from under the bed, meowed once loudly (usually has a soft voice) and stood there wobbling on her legs. She finally made it out to the kitchen and drank some water, all the time wobbling on her legs. Then went back under the bed where it's warm. It rained today -- we're hoping that is the rain that has stiffened her, but at her age, we can't keep kidding ourselves. She doesn't appear to be in any pain. Up until this morning, she has been eating. She doesn't like soft food and will only eat the dry stuff. She drank water tonight, so maybe that's a good sign. Like I said, I dread what the morning may bring.

Thanks to all of you for the kind words. As of this moment, Wed 6:04 pm, she is still with us. She only meowed once yesterday but has been quiet since then, that's why I figured she is not in pain. She came out from under the bed and went to the water dish just a few minutes ago, but was only barely able to walk. She is in the arms of son-in-law and they are trying to hand-feed her bits of tuna and trying to get her to drink some tuna water. There's no interest in either. We talked it over (daughter, son-in-law, me) and decided that son-in-law would take her to the vet tomorrow; the appointment is 9:30, if she lives that long. Granddaughter has to have some time with this decision as it is her cat since she was a baby -- they were babies together. I tear up at the very thought -- it's so sad that precious kitties have such short lives.
Posted by HeiressofBickworth | Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:58 AM (8 replies)

I lived in Germany 1965-67

I was about 20 when I went to Dachau and walked through the grounds. It was a mere 20 years after the war. Walked past mounds that were labeled ashes of unknown numbers. I walked along the blood ditches -- where for sport, the Nazi soldiers lined up prisoners and shot them through the head to see how many they could kill with one shot. I looked into the ovens where the bodies were burned. The prisoner barracks had been removed by that time, but the cement foundations were still in place. The administration building was a museum. I remember vividly the last picture on the wall of the museum -- it was a large wall-covering picture of the main courtyard of the camp showing prisoners shoulder to shoulder, filing the yard. The exit door was next -- opening the door upon the yard which was completely empty. Tears ran down my face the whole time I was there. I had read about Nazis and the Holocaust but there is nothing that can equal seeing in person where it happened.

As to the question of whether or not the Germans knew about the exterminations, I believe they not only knew and approved, but even BENEFITED from the removal of Jews. The homes and property of Jews were taken over by Germans seeking to improve their own lot. It can be summed up by one line of a movie I saw recently. A young Jewish man was looking for his family -- he went to his home which was occupied by Germans. The German wife says to the German husband, "but you said they were never coming back".
Posted by HeiressofBickworth | Tue Jan 27, 2015, 09:02 PM (2 replies)

This has bothered me since the first Iraq war

Please, please don't call the Iraqi people "insurgents" because that isn't true. The definition of insurgent is 1) Rising in revolt against a government or other established authority 2) Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.

The Iraqi people were not in revolt against their government -- they were fighting an invasion by the Americans and "the coalition of the willing". We INVADED their country; they had every right to fight back. What we did was a violation of international law. Now remind me, just why aren't Bush and Cheney behind bars?
Posted by HeiressofBickworth | Fri Jan 23, 2015, 10:04 PM (1 replies)

For those of you concerned about the discrepancy of surname spellings

I've been doing genealogy research for over 40 years. The one thing that made things easier for me was the understanding that spelling means nothing. With the low literacy level of some demographics, some didn't even know how to spell their own names or agree with other family members on how to spell their names. Spelling of a name can be different even within the same family.

Also, public records were written by officials, not the family member. So, depending on the national origin or educational level of the officials, they wrote down names as they heard them, i.e., phonetically. There was no standardization of spelling. Imagine an Irish official at Ellis Island writing down the name of a Greek immigrant. Or a German census official writing down an English name. A friend of mine found numerous spellings for her surname, Deal. She found Deale, Dhiel, Dhiele, Diel, Deall.

So, while doing your research, pay more attention to how a name SOUNDS, rather than what it looks like on paper.
Posted by HeiressofBickworth | Sun Dec 21, 2014, 02:38 AM (1 replies)

As a paralegal, I had a notary license for many years.

The firm paid the annual license fee, the bond fees and the annual insurance premiums required for licensing. Since I only used it for in-house purposes, I never kept the journal and photocopies of proofs of identification necessary for a public license. Do you need it for your job or are you going to go into business providing notary services. If providing services directly to the public, check your state's laws on what is necessary to do so. If you don't have a bond and insurance, you could be personally liable for any mistakes in notarizations.

Some things to watch for: only notarize signatures that are signed in front of you and only with identification of the person signing (drivers license, passport). I once had a guy ask me to notarize his wife's signature -- he had her sign it at home and brought it to me. I told him that she would have to come to my office, with identification, and a blank document and sign it in my presence. Once a guy asked me to notarize an application for a visa (don't remember which country). He had the proper identification and was going to sign it in my presence. However, I read the notarization paragraph which said that I was attesting to his good character. While we worked at the same company, he was two floors away from me and I really didn't know him well enough to put my ass on the line for him like that. I declined to notarize. Watch the language of the notarization paragraph -- you are only certifying the identification of the person signing, not the accuracy or veracity of the contents of the document.
Posted by HeiressofBickworth | Sun Dec 21, 2014, 01:45 AM (0 replies)

WW II ended 69 years ago.

Just exactly how many former Nazis are collecting Social Security that the entire Congress of the United States needed to take the time, effort and assets involved to introduce, discuss and pass this law and then take up the President's time to sign it. And they did this instead of dealing with issues that affect millions of people, the environment, the economy or other important works. Unless the bill provides for repayment by former Nazis, time and effort would have been better spent on something more useful. Doing nothing while appearing to be doing something. That pretty much sums up this Congress.
Posted by HeiressofBickworth | Fri Dec 19, 2014, 02:38 AM (1 replies)

It depends, I guess.

If Teapartiers want him, all laws, rules, customs, and history will be fried, tied, lied, and broken to achieve their goal. If not, he won't get past first base. Expect to see some astounding hypocrisy from the right!

For those of us who are interested in upholding laws, we need to see that all conditions were met whereby a child born of an American parent while abroad were met. Cruz's father was a Cuban citizen at the time of Teddie's birth and it was Teddie's mother who was the US citizen living in Canada. Citizenship was never a valid issue for President Obama as he was born in Hawaii and had citizenship by virtue of birth in an American state.

Here's the website that contains the requirements for securing US citizenship if born abroad: http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html It's a State Department website so I think we can count on the accuracy of the statement of requirements. I am particularly interested in this: "Parents of a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen or citizens should apply for a CRBA and/or a U.S. passport for the child as soon as possible. Failure to promptly document a child who meets the statutory requirements for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth may cause problems for the parents and the child when attempting to establish the childís U.S. citizenship and eligibility for the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship..."

Oh, and about that renunciation -- It isn't just a matter of SAYING he renounces his Canadian citizenship, there are DOCUMENTS required to affect the renunciation which need to be filed with and approved by the Canadian government. At the very least, we need to see the long-form documents, don't ya think?

Posted by HeiressofBickworth | Wed Dec 17, 2014, 12:49 AM (0 replies)

Being somewhat cynical

I believe the stage is already set for Republican dominance. Evidence?

ID laws -- making it difficult and expensive for the working class and poor to obtain the documentation required to prove citizenship.

Suppression of voting rights. Many states have configured laws to reduce the number of voters who otherwise would have voted Democratic.

Changing poll hours geared to deter working voters who can't take time off to vote. Reducing advance voting in order to deter group assisted voting on Sundays -- like churches taking people to the polls after services.

Locating polls in inaccessible areas. There have been reports of voting locations changed without notice, moved out of poor areas and established in locations that require driving or multiple public transportation transfers.

Irregularities in operations of voting machines. There have been reports of vote-switching.

Engineering long wait-times to access voting machines. Old, broken machines in poor neighborhoods while stacking more affluent areas with more and better machines. Makes a difference if one has to wait 15 minutes to vote verses 2 - 7 hours wait.

And then there's the over-all danger of vote tampering because of the electronic manner of storing and counting votes.

So, when the Republicans have whittled down the number of possible opposition voters, stealing the rest isn't so difficult. I fear the time to stop this machine is long past.

If you want to know what a Republican government (legislative, judicial, executive) would look like, just read the Republic Party Platform. It tells all.

Posted by HeiressofBickworth | Sun Dec 7, 2014, 11:47 PM (0 replies)

A friend of mine

had fibroids for many years with heavy bleeding and cramping as a result. I first met her when she was a Temp at the office I worked at. We became friends, she told me about her fibroids and said that she had no insurance and couldn't do anything about them but take acupuncture for the pain. She subsequently was given a full-time permanent job complete with health insurance. I talked with her again about having a hysterectomy now that she had insurance. She didn't want to because of the down-time and this was a new job and she couldn't take the time off. She also had issues with "western medicine" and preferred other treatments. She was there a couple of years and then moved on. Later, when the bleeding and pain became debilitating, she finally went to a doctor only to learn that she had Stage 4 uterine cancer. The fibroids had been masking the cancerous tumors. She died five months later.

So, when I had some problems and learned that it was fibroids, I INSISTED that I have a complete hysterectomy, just on the chance that fibroids might be masking cancerous tumors, like my friend. I had the hysterectomy and was fortunate enough not to have cancer. Now my daughter has fibroids. She knows about my friend's cancer and death. She has been pushing her doctor to do a hysterectomy but the doctor is one of those "let's wait and see" types. I told her that she should just go to the surgeon I went to and do it before something goes wrong. Taking the uterus out as whole as possible will contain any tumors that might exist. This slice n'dice method spreads cancer if it is present so there's no sense in taking chances.
Posted by HeiressofBickworth | Wed Nov 26, 2014, 02:10 AM (0 replies)

No, it's not only democratic voters

however, it's known that the higher the voter turn-out, the more likely the Democrats will win. So, in order to keep the turn-out as low as possible, the repubs are willing to sacrifice their own. And, I suspect, a bit of repub snobbery - if you cant afford to register or get to the polling place, they don't want your vote anyway. And as far as "cant possibly be so may people", the exercise of democracy requires that voting be accessible to all citizens.

Yes, there would be pro-bono attorneys, but the bottom line is the same. Every document necessary for voter registration costs money, some more than others. When the choice is $50 worth of groceries for the kids or $50 for a certified birth certificate, it is more likely that the groceries will be top priority. That's why the 24th amendment to the constitution banned the poll tax, and any document that requires a fee for purpose of registration is de facto a poll tax.

Not everyone has a SS#. The requirement for a SS# changed over time and it was not required for children to obtain one (for tax identification purposes on parent's returns) until 1986. And the real killer was the Real ID Act of 2005 which "Establishes State driverís license and identification security standards which requires States to confirm with Social Security a SSN for issuance of a drivers license or identity card". (P.L. 109-13) Prior to 2005, a drivers license or identity card was sufficient ID for any purpose, including voter registration.

These voter ID laws contain other voter-suppression tricks besides specific ID documentation. For example, by reducing Sunday early voting, it hampers inner-city people who have, for years, gone to their local church on Sunday and the church taking them by bus to their polling place. This was particularly important for people who work all week and not able to take time off for voting, for those without cars for transportation to the polling place and for the elderly and/or handicapped people who have mobility difficulties.

Another trick used is the relocation of the polling place without adequate notification. When it is difficult enough to get to a local polling station, the problems are prohibitive in locating and getting to a new station. I saw a news item on MSNBC a couple of months back where they interviewed a woman (it was Detroit, if I recall correctly) who said that her polling place was previously just a couple of blocks from her home, but since its been relocated it takes two bus transfers just to get to the new place. The time involved and the bus cost is a sure deterrent to voting.

Some of the voter suppression laws have required re-registration, even when people have been voting for decades. This is the most hard-hit demographic as they are the least likely to have any of the documentation required.

Fortunately (for me anyway), I live in Washington State. We have on-line registration; when my granddaughter turned 18 I helped her register to vote on-line. We have mail-in ballots. Those of use who have been registered to vote since dirt was young have not been required to re-register or provide any additional ID documents.

In my opinion, the answer to the voter suppression laws is to expand registration availability, require fee-less documentation and vote by mail, with no postage required. Naw -- that would be too simple.
Posted by HeiressofBickworth | Tue Oct 14, 2014, 03:12 AM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »