HA! HA! HA! -- "pig" Latin. HA! HA! HA! -- "Yo momma." Stop! No more! You'll have me laughing all night! :smilielol5:

The thing about the dinner table really gives me pause. It sounds so much like Oliver Twist. This guy is on a very strange power trip, and he's taking along anyone who is unlucky enough to cross his path - his own kids, other's people's kids, and other adults. Most parents use discretion when correcting their children in public, whether they spank or not. These public beatings serve not only to terrify his children, but to intimidate anyone else who happens to be around. Nothing you say will change this man's behavior. Perhaps the pastor might be of some influence, but I honestly doubt it. You've stated your opinion clearly and forcefully. There's little more you can do, short of notifying the proper authorities if you feel the situation truly warrants it. If I were in your shoes I would act to severely limit his exposure to my family.

Do you change the name before you save it? If not, it will just replace the old one.

Can't stay in his seat. Wants attention. Eats boogers, paper and crayons. So much of his behavior is NORMAL for an active 5 year old. I have heard of 5 year olds who can sit quietly all day, but I confess I have never seen it for myself. Man, even I have a 10 year old who eats paper! All I can say is get that woman away from people's children, and thank goodness for homeschooling.

I haven't read all the responses, so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else has said. I think trying to change this woman's mind is an exercise in futility. You can no more change her mind than she can successfully parent an 18 year old adult. You could construct the soundest biblical argument, only to have it dismissed again and again. Sometimes we are so convinced of our "rightness," or perhaps righteousness, that we can't hear reason when it is presented to us by others, or unfortunately even by God. This family will have to learn by suffering the consequences of their choices. Just like we all do I guess. Her adult children will put a stop to this by standing up for themselves, leaving the house or both. I can only hope that they do it in a healthy way. There is a danger that while fleeing their parents' dysfunctional home, they could be running toward something even worse. Sadly, unless there was an eminent danger of abuse directed at her children, I would quietly distance myself from this woman or at least stop discussing this subject with her.

Interpretations of the law differ. That's the problem. As you well know, nowhere in the law is "homeschooling" explicitly stated as a legal option. I sincerely hope the result will be a much better homeschooling law for California. I felt the letter drive they ran on their website was a blatant effort at self promotion. Other state-wide groups strongly disagreed with HSLDA on this strategy as evidenced by the emails they sent around to discourage people from signing. As a California homeschooler, I got emails from all the groups involved. HSLDA even admitted on the sign up page that the letters were not to be submitted directly to the court. Of course, the list of names generated by the letter drive will be a rich source of potential new members. I worked as a lobbyist and organizer for several non-profit advocacy groups. I have run many a grassroots campaign, so I am very familiar with how they operate. Because the central matter of the case was abuse of the children in question. Their plight has been lost in all public squabbling. My opinions are inflamatory inasmuch as they are the complete opposite of yours. Let us agree to disagree. We are certainly not going change each other's minds.

The law in California did not change at all. The controversial ruling was a strict interpretation of the law as written, not a change. Many Californians use private independent study as a loophole to get around the law. In my view the HSLDA whipped California and national homeschoolers into a hysterical frenzy, then used the panic to beef up their membership. (Did somebody say "protection racket?") As far as the actual case is concerned, I understand they filed an amicus brief with the court as did several other homeschool organizations. The happy result was that the ruling was decertified or made to apply only to the abusive family in question. Again, the law remains unchanged. Now the important question for me is whether this could have been achieved without gross self promotion and fear mongering on the part of HSDLA. I listened to their representatives give interviews and read many of their statements. I don't remember any sympathy for the abused children involved in the particular case. Had HSLDA said something like, "We understand this is a troubled homeschooling family, but they are not representative of all homeschoolers. Don't let them ruin it for us all," I would have a lot more respect for them. "My homeschoolers, right or wrong" is not a position I want to support. Bottom line, HSLDA doesn't speak for me. I was dissappointed with their handling of the California crisis. There is no room in my budget for their agenda. Granted that's just my rather strong opinion, your mileage may vary.

(((Rhonda))) I've been there, too. Eight years ago my father died, I had baby #3, and my mother had a stroke all within a two month period. I had to handle my dad's estate, be my mom's legal guardian for 2 years and continue to raise my family. Four years later my paternal grandmother's dementia made it impossible for her to live on her own, and there was no one to take her in but me. That crisis coincided with the birth of baby #4, and continues in my heart although granny died two years ago. Burnout is the dirty little secret of homeschooling, and nobody ever warns us about it when we sign up. I wish I had good, easy answers for you and for myself. I feel the toll that care-taking has placed on my physical and mental health. I'm not nearly as efficient or organized as I used to be. I don't get as much intense or creative schooling done as I would like. My house isn't as clean and my bills aren't always paid on time like they used to be, but I'm still here and so is my family. Sometimes the best and only thing you can do is get through the present moment, then the next and next. Things that help a little... I'm honest with everyone about my limitations and the people around me have had to adjust. Dh picks up more slack around the house, and the kids are old enough to help out more. Plus my expectations have been lowered quite a bit. I like to laugh, and I indulge my twisted sense of humor whenever I can. I have found hobbies like crochet and knitting that force me to relax and be in the moment. (You can't worry about the last stitch or getting to the post office when you knit. You can only think about one stitch at a time.) I don't know that what is useful to me will help you at all, but it is nice to (virtually) talk about it. Perhaps we can start a homeschool burnout support group!

I have to agree with your dh. Mr. Rogers' death hit me hard, almost as hard as the death of my own father some years later. I cried like a baby when I heard that he passed away. He was so kind and sincere. His calming persona was contagious. He taught us about diversity long before it was the politically correct thing to do. I always respected him for choosing not to turn his show into a 30 minute toy/junk food commercial. Plus, there was the coolest music ranging from Sweet Honey in the Rock to Yo-Yo Ma. I still miss him.

That's what I figured. Headed out to get the oil. Thanks!

We live on a steep hillside which is not conducive to a traditional lawn. We followed the example of some neighbors by installing ice plant, a succulent ground cover. It needs little to no water once established, reduces fire danger, requires little weeding or maintenance other than cutting it back every once in a while. Ice plant is very common in my part of California for all these reasons. Note: Unfortunately the following does not depict my house, yard, or driveway.

Today is dh's birthday, and I just battered 2 pounds of peeled, deveined shrimp to fry as a special treat. Then I realized that I only have about a cup of canola oil which is not nearly enough. Will I ruin this shrimp if I try to "oven fry" it? Is there anyone out there who has done this without over-cooking the shrimp? Or should I run out and buy some oil?

Those who say that slavery would have petered out on its own, how do you rationalize this? Specifically, the poster who said race relations would be better if only slavery were allowed to end gradually, how should this have been done? OK, first slaves work 10 hour days instead of 16-20 hour days? Then maybe families are allowed to be kept together? Beatings could be administered with fists instead of whips? Slave owners could be strongly discouraged from raping women under their power? Perhaps then slaves could be allowed to read, or gather in groups of 3 or more? Maybe the next step could be "whole" person status instead of 2/5. And the final step, actual wages. How's this for a plan? Sounds like a lot of "let them eat cake" to me, but then I'm no civil war scholar. I'm astounded at how easy it is for some to justify this way of thinking, when surely no reasonable person would argue that the Holocaust in Germany should have been allowed to end gradually. Maybe too much time has passed and people can't see slavery for what it truly was - an African Holocaust. Anyway, I'd really like to know what is the best way to end an institution that violates human rights with out really ending it. If there was a bloodless way to end slavery, what was it? For how much longer should slavery have been maintained to meet this end? And exactly how much better off would we be?

I never said that lack of opportunities implied ignorance. That would mean I would be calling my own father ignorant, and he was one of the smartest people I've ever known. After all there's a difference between lack of formal education and ignorance. I also didn't say it was a bad thing to go into the service for want of other opportunities. What I said was that it does happen. I'm glad that your brother had a positive experience in the military. Many, many people do. My father didn't, so he wanted his own children to have more choices. I don't think that's a bad thing, either.

My father never went beyond jr. high school and had very few options as a young man. He saw the military as a way out, the only way to gain skills and build a future for himself. So he volunteered at age 17 to fight in the Korean War. If he had been able to obtain a better education and other options for himself, he would have chosen differently. He felt that he had been "cannon fodder," but at the time it was better than living in poverty at home. My father wanted more for his own children. When reading Steven King's hyperbolic comments, I can't help but interpret them through my father's experience. Military service is certainly meaningful work. I would never say the armed services are filled with uneducated, unintelligent people. That would be an insult to my own mother, father, FIL, grandfathers, uncles and cousins who have served. However, there are people, like my father, who choose the service for want of other choices. I'm not saying this as a judgment, merely a statement of fact. I would guess the military-as-career-of-last-resort phenomenon was probably more common when my father was a young man, but I don't believe it has been completely eliminated because many of the class/race factors that fed into it still exist. I have no idea how what percentage of today's soldiers joined for lack of other opportunites. I wonder if there are stats on this issue.

Another one I forgot: Scanners. I get the shivers just thinking about it.

Island of Dr. Moreau - Saw this as a kid at the drive-in with my parents. I don't know what possessed them to take us to such a movie! It gave me the heebee geebees for years. House of Sand and Fog - Based on the book of the same title which Oprah chose for her book club. I hated all the characters and wanted to give every one of them a V-8 slap on the forehead. Hellraiser - I walked out after 15 minutes. Just couldn't take it. I have no idea what it was about. All I remember is there was a guy whose entire head was covered with protruding nails. Creepy!

Thank you for posting this. I am perfectly happy being an urban mother whose kids' outdoor time is controlled and structured. I would never allow my kids to wander around in the woods or go to a park unsupervised. I detest nature walks, hiking and camping. I prefer to experience nature in my little vegetable garden, on the Discovery Channel or in the back yard. Yet to argue that they are stunted is absolutely false. My children have free reign to explore in so many ways. They use their imaginations through art and story telling, plus they expand their minds by reading everyday. When we want to learn about the great outdoors, we turn to the experts. You see, the good people of National Geographic do all the hiking, diving and exploring so I don't have to. That's what I pay them for. :D I'm being a little tongue in cheek here, a very little, and I fully realize that not many people will share my view. I just don't think that my kids are missing out on anything by living an urban life, rather than one closer to nature. They can decide when they are older (and paying for their own medical bills) to live like Grizzly Adams or Bear Grylls. There will be plenty of time provided we haven't completely destroyed the environment before they grow up.

LOL!!! I think it works. Thanks!

:smilielol5: Karen, thanks for adding some levity to what can be a very heated issue. You reminded me of my mother's comment, "I'll worry about gay marriage when I receive a proposal from a lesbian." For me the proposal would have to come with a shotgun and a preacher before I would get too worried. Anyway, here are my mixed up thoughts ... -My husband and I were married by a Justice of the Peace. Everyone considers us "married." That is everyone except the dreadful woman at a church we attended who referred to my dh as my fiance for years. Maybe to her dh and I are merely members of a civil union. (:lol: Whatever, lady!) -There are some moral matters in which the state actively outlaws certain behaviors - murder, rape, theft, fraud, narcotic drug addictions, etc. Other behaviors have been decriminalized and/or regulated (either deliberately or by default practice) - sodomy, alcohol/nicotine addiction, adultery, fornication, abortion, etc. Caring people will disagree about which behaviors should fall into which categories. I guess I think same sex marriage falls into second category. Outlawing same sex marriage won't have any more effect on homosexuality than laws banning sodomy. Same sex couples will cohabit, raise children, leave estates, require next of kin in hospital settings, and desire to share insurance benefits, etc. I see no harm in state sanctioning of same sex marriage to regulate these legal matters. -Polygamy makes me uncomfortable. I have to be honest and say that this comes from my own cultural prejudice, not any rational or moral argument. I know that people choose this lifestyle regardless of legal and social stigmas against it in the US. I also know that polygamy is a normal way of life for many people around the world. I wouldn't like the idea of legal polygamy, but I wonder if decriminalizing it would allow more protections for its participants. I just don't know. -This question might open a can of worms, but I will ask anyway... I wonder at conservatives who oppose government regulation in people's lives, yet have no problem regulating who can marry or whom. This seems to me the most intimate of government invasions. If one believes it is wrong to legislate charity by taking money from people to give to the poor, why is it OK to legislate sexual morality by saying Steve can't marry Tom, or Steve can't marry Betty and Alice? (I do believe that state has an interest in preventing close kinship marriage on the grounds of public health. So I'm not questioning these kinds of restrictions.)

:rofl::smilielol5::lol::D Some would argue that the Supreme Court did something like this in Bush v. Gore. Anyway, if the vast masses are too ignorant to be completely trusted to vote, why allow it? Why not go back to voting restrictions from the Jim Crow south? Or only allow property owners to vote like the ancient Greeks? What's the point of allowing people to vote their conscious if the state has to have a mechanism to nullify that vote when it's "wrong." And who is to decide the manner and degree of wrongness? Intellectually, I can understand the point here, but it makes me uncomfortable. Some of the sharpest political analysis I've ever heard has been at the barber shop or the family reunion where I was one of a very few who would be considered educated. Some would and have argued that people like this shouldn't be allowed to vote, and blood was shed to earn them the right. This is a slippery slope in my opinion.

I've been thinking about the institution of marriage since yesterday's controversial ruling in California. What does marriage mean to you? Do you think traditional marriage/family is threatened by gay or plural marriage? If so, how? How much do you think the government should be involved in regulating who should be allowed to marry? Do you see this as a federal, state and/or religious question matter?

test

If you love classic literature, mysteries, and science fiction, Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series starting with The Eyre Affair will fit the bill. It's great fun!

I know men have a blind spot when it comes to the laundry hamper. Does it extend to the trash can, too? Why does dh hand me his used napkins, cups, gum wrappers, etc., and then look surprised when I won't take them? What do I look like, his personal garbage receptacle? :ack2: