I use this one: http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Hamburger-Buns/Detail.aspx I sub in half to 2/3 soft white whole wheat (I have a grain mill) and I add in gluten. I have to be really careful with the whole wheat or they'll come out too dense to be real hamburger buns. Also, I don't preheat the oven, because I find they rise better when they spend a few minutes in a warming oven.

I'm using Winterpromise's American Story 1 this year with my 7 and 5 year olds. It's going pretty well, but, as usual, I've done so much tweaking already that it seems like it makes a lot more sense to put something together myself for next year that's exactly what I want. Easier said than done, though, of course, so I want to start pulling some ideas for resources together now and work on it a little at a time over the year. It seems like most of the good stuff is for early American history. I think WP goes up to 1850, so I'm looking for Civil War and after, basically. There's a lot for the Civil War, and then pickings get relatively slim. So--what have you used and liked? I'm looking for fiction and non-fiction books, plus activity and project ideas. My kids tend to like games and more open-ended/creative activity ideas (not stuff with a lot of coloring; that's one thing in WP that's not working for us). And I don't like crafts that require a lot of prep time and/or that can't really be done by younger kids so that I wind up doing all the work :tongue_smilie: Thanks!

It always takes less time than I expect....My seven year old usually spends about an hour in the morning, then we do another hour or so (depending on whether we have projects planned) in the afternoon on history or science, and then anywhere between an hour and two hours on reading (to himself and read alouds) throughout the day.

Maybe it's just that only one of the employees is required to "wash hands" :lol:

Well, there are waiting lists for healthy, white infants, at any rate. I wish it were true that there were plenty of homes available in this country for EVERY child who needs one.

I don't mean to suggest that birth control in incredibly hard to obtain in this country--although I doubt if every county health department is as generous with it as yours (at my college, at any rate, the health department was not handing out free birth control pills, and that was a not-negligable monthly expense for someone like me who was going to school full time and working 2 minimum wage jobs). But certainly there are those who would seek to make birth control and information about birth control less accessible (and yes, I count pushing abstinence-only education) . And when bills designed to make birth control easier to get come up, John McCain votes against them. My main point was that the legal status of abortion in a country is not a closely correlated with abortion rates, whereas the availability of contraceptives IS....and Democrats are more invested in the widespread availability of and education about birth control. Now, others have pointed out that, for them, birth control is part of the problem and/or they see it as an ends justifies the means situation. I can understand and respect that position, but it's not mine.

there are other "basic needs" besides food. Safe, affordable housing for one. Medical care. Child care for working women. 73% of women cite "can't afford child" as their reason or one of their reasons for choosing abortion, so I don't think it's accurate to say there's no link between poverty and abortion. http://www.mccl.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=400&srcid=183

http://quotation-marks.blogspot.com/ I found a great one at a restaurant near our house I'm not sure if they mean to say, "you can do whatever you want in here, as long as you call it 'washing your hands'" or maybe they just want to emphasize, "hey--we didn't make up this rule. We're just quoting the 'health inspector.'" Either way, I don't know that we should keep eating there....

...except that if you look at the studies that have been done, it does. Do you have any evidence that "more birth control=more people having relations"? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.htm

I understand what you're saying. And that's one of the reasons my mind isn't made up yet. This really is one of those topics where I'm pretty in the middle. I can see both sides, and I also see propoganda and misinformation on both sides. So I wade through it the best I can when I make decisions for my kids. We have a selective/delayed schedule that I've been very comfortable with...varicella is the last hold-out that I haven't decided one way or the other on.

ooh--I'll have to try that! DS does the same thing with rejecting books because I suggested them. I only have boys, but some of the more "girlish" books (or less boyish) DS 7 has enjoyed are the Ramona books, Carolyn Haywood's Betsy books, Boxcar Children, the Littles, and of course Magic Tree House.

According to this study that came out last year: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/abstract the legality of abortion in a country doesn't have much effect on abortion rates. The availability of contraceptives is the single biggest factor that drives abortion rates down. I said all of this in another thread, but McCain has a long history of voting against measures that would make contraceptives more available. My cynical self also thinks that MOST Republican politicians (McCain among them) have no intention of working to get Roe reversed because abortion is far too useful as a political tool.

I'll answer this since it's something I've looked into extensively in making my own decision (which, incidentally, I still haven't completely made, but I'm leaning in one direction based on my research). The thinking is not that the kids who are getting vaccinated are going to get more shingles. It's that the adults today who had wild chicken pox as children are more likely to get shingles because they're not being exposed to chicken pox on a regular basis to "boost" their natural immunity. And it's not that no one got shingles before the vaccine around--one stat I saw said that 50% of people over 80 can expect to get shingles; it's very common in people who've ever had chicken pox. Again, according to preliminary studies on people who have had the vaccine, they are in fact significantly LESS likely to get shingles than people who've had wild chicken pox. The thinking is that, since shingles is reactivated chicken pox, getting the vaccine means you likely won't get the disease, which means it won't be around to reactivate. I imagine the reason it REDUCES the shingles rate instead of eliminating it is partly that it's a live vaccine and partly that a small percentage of vaccinated people will still get a mild case.

We paid (I just checked to be sure) $2.00 pound hanging weight for 1/2, plus 32 cents a pound processing plus an $8 "kill fee." I don't think we weighed it to see when we picked it up, but the guy who sold us the cow said we'd probably pay for around 250 pounds and wind up with around 225 in our freezer. Ours is not organic, but is grassfed, no antibiotics or hormones, no pesticides on the fields, etc.

My little sister asked me to take pictures for her wedding next spring, so I might use that as an excuse to get a new lens for my camera. And I kind of want a Dyson, but that doesn't seem quite as exciting.

But the Amish are a genetically isolated population. There are plenty of reasons besides a low vaccination rate that could explain that. Correlation does not equal causality. I have a friend with an autistic son who suspects it could be linked to so many plastics in our culture (and, you know, not so much in Amish culture). That, genetics, vaccination rates--those are just three out of countless possible reasons for the rarity of autism among the Amish.

According to the study I saw: http://www.oah.state.mn.us/cases/health-immun/dr-chickenpox.html rate of shingles among kids under 20 who have natural exposure to varicella: 68 per 100,000 rate of shingles among kids under 20 who've had the vaccine: 18 per 100,000 That's a big reduction in shingles for kids who have had the vaccine. The question is whether same kind of numbers will hold up in adult populations. Not many kids under 20 get shingles either way, of course, but that's all that can be studied so far since the vaccine is relatively new. We vaccinate on a selective/delayed schedule, and shingles is one of the big reasons we're leaning toward doing the varicella vaccine at some point for our kids.

I think he's just biding his time (get it--biding/biden? I crack myself up)....he's starting to hit back--taking advantage of the too many houses to count thing and all that. Time will tell--it's still early, much as it doesn't feel like it this year.

I reuse them. Assuming I'm going to put some other bread product in them, I usually just shake out the crumbs.

I didn't mean to suggest centrist voters are wishy-washy! I guess I came across as pretty polarizing--it's just my politics geek coming out. I just mean that there's a big danger in being bipartisan for the sake of being bipartisan--it's a critique Obama got from the left during the primaries: that he fetishizes bipartisanship. I don't think he does--I think he recognizes that you respect people whose opinions differ from yours, you work to find common ground where you can (like how he worked with Coburn on the Transparency act), but you don't compromise your core principles. And my personal opinion is that the VP slot is one where you want someone who's on the same page as you on those core principles--you're saying, "here's someone who I feel great about taking my place if something happens to me." I think cabinet positions are a much better place for people who are going to challenge your thinking and bring in a wider viewpoint. Biden's got strengths and weaknesses, but I think he's okay. And I think if Obama HAD picked someone further to the right, we'd spend the next week hearing non-stop from pundits about how he's pandering to the right. Picking a VP is sort of a no-win situation. McCain's got all the same problems.

Well, that's been the strongest rumor for awhile, but I'm nearly certain there's been no official announcement. He wouldn't announce it today because he'd have to share the spotlight.

...has anyone seen the ad McCain immediately rolled out, with Biden criticizing Obama during the primaries? Does that mean it's safe to assume the CW is wrong and McCain's NOT picking Romney? Because I'm sure one pick some choice moments from THOSE debates for ad fodder....

CNN says: Biden's not my first choice, but I think that logic is sound. I think it's wisest to pick a VP based on geography and demographics and/or just someone who reinforces your own message. And someone you can work with. I'm not big on pandering to the center-right, though. I think that's the path Democrats have been taking for a couple of decades now, and it's an outdated strategy. That was one of my primary problems with Clinton's campaign. She was campaigning like it was still 1996. The Georgia senate race is within 5 or 6 points on a lot of polls. There are WAY more registered Democrats than Republicans these days, and the numbers keep going up. If you get those votes, you're in. It's not a year for catering, IMO.

Interesting...it looks like Obama really needs me on his staff :tongue_smilie: