I have mixed feelings on this. I've always felt it's a terrible idea to put your kids on TV like the duggars do. Can you imagine what the younger ones especially have gone through, basically growing up on TV? It's like a real life Truman Show. There's no way it couldn't warp their minds to some degree. About the molestation, it's actually unlikely a "real" psychologist would have recommended he leave the home permanently. Unfortunately in cases of sibling abuse the victim is often left in the home with the abuser. And given that he was a minor at the time it's even less likely criminal charges would have been pursued, especially if he stopped the behavior. It does bother me that people wag fingers that he saw a church counselor and not a licensed psychiatrist. Having encountered any number of useless psychiatrists, I know a degree does not a miracle worker make, And the "therapy" he did go through had him out of the house which is more than would have happened had he gone through a more traditional system. Why abusive siblings are left in the home with their victims is beyond me but sadly it happens all the time. There was a high profile kidnapping case a while back where a mom fled to mexico with her young son who was being sexually abused by an older stepbrother who faced no legal consequences and was allowed to stay in the home. But if this ends the show it's a good thing IMO, b/c the children will be able to grow up away from the camera and with some privacy.

I'm not sure this is true. It's quite possible to stay alive and be healthy on a very low carb diet. Some people even eat close to 0 carbs and are fine. The body can burn fat, and even alcohol (spirits are 0 carb), for energy Moocow have you tried eating to your monitor to determine exactly how many carbs you an tolerate in a given time window? For me it's about 20 carbs per 2-3 hours. This means I can eat carbs, just in very small portions (although measuring them out gets tedious so I aim for low carb). Also have you looked into cooking, cooling, and reheating starchy foods to create resistant starches? This works with potatoes, pasta, and rice, although I still get bad readings with reheated rice. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29629761

We have similar problems with the coach of a (non athletic) extracurricular DD 16 is involved in. He texts her but not us (the parents) even though we requested to be put on the list. Plans are last minute, full disclosure of where/ what/ when/ how much $$ is never made, which sends us scrambling to drive her places and scrape together money. I feel this is inappropriate on his part but I admit to being overprotective and a bit of a control freak with my kids, so I'd have to select both choices of your poll so I can't vote. That being said a youth group of fewer than 10 kids (if I'm understanding your post) seems awful small so you may want to look for a different church.

I think its one of those things, you have to envision, and then know if you can envision it, you can do it, and doing it is as simple as eating less- a lot less. As someone else said, we really need very little food to maintain our bodies- at least "very little" compared to how most of america eats. I love the message board low carb friends- they have lots of other diets there beyond low carb. Some women swear by up day/ down day where you partially fast for one day and then eat whatever you want the next day. This is probably closest to how humans evolved. It's really unnatural to have a constant, plentiful, calorie rich food supply. The body is very efficient at storing extra fat, but it is also very efficient at burning it off when deprived of food. Personally I've lost well with a VLC diet (800 or less a day) ... basically the hcg diet without hcg. I lost the weight quickly, kept it off, and had no ill side effects. However, I didn't do it longer than 6 weeks.

We can barely afford is and have seriously discussed going without and paying the penalty. It's incredibly expensive when you factor in copays, deductible, and coinsurance on top of the premiums. We're not eligible for subsidies and buy on the exchange. Even people who do get the subsidies struggle because they still have to shell out for copays, deductibles etc. The ACA is like trying to solve homelessness by making it law that everyone own a house.

Most of the "scary" stuff is happening in europe, not the US, so in that respect americans don't need to worry. But yes, there are indeed neighborhoods in european cities where gays and "improperly dressed" or "improperly accompanied" women are harassed and bullied or outright attacked. It's a sad state of affairs. The closest americans have come to sharia law is that some courts will recognize the authority of religious courts in civil cases, usually cases involving divorce, domestic violence, women's issue stuff. You see this happen in orthodox (jewish) communities as well where beit din decisions are upheld in civil courts. Unfortunately it's usually women who suffer in these situations. But for your average american it isn't an issue that will affect them. I do feel terrible for gays in the affected areas. Imagine the terror they feel.

They gloss over the Minnesota comparison. Just that despite scoring high on the NAEP "it isn't good enough by international education comparisons." What does he mean by that exactly? What were Minnesota's PISA scores? My understanding is that white and asian americans outscore most of the world on the PISA test. I believe asian americans are only outscored by a handful of other asian countries (which likely cherry pick their students taking the test- china especially). I do love how Fins don't start formal schooling until age 7. The push for ever younger institutionalized learning and standardized testing in the US seems borderline inhumane to me. ETA meant to mention how amazingly well behaved the students in this video are. That's one of the main problem w american schools, the kids can be so rotten, rude and disrespectful. No one can learn in that kind of environment. I also wonder if US emphasis on high school sports inhibits academic performance.

Yes me too, I use the atkins 1972 food list but add more non-starchy veggies and some nuts. It isn't so bad once you get used to it. I faithfully tried the "no white" diet but my body seems to react to whole grains no different than refined grains.

I am prediabetic (perhaps even diabetic type II... waiting on blood tests) probably due to GD. I am BMI 19 so can't really lose much weight from where I am. I don't exercise but I'm active and walk a lot. I've read quite a bit about diets for diabetics and it's really strange how high carb these diets are. I've followed them to a "T" (whole grains, no sugar, lots of produce) and still get very high readings. The only way I've been able to control my blood sugar through diet is with a low carb diet. Even pairing carbs with proteins doesn't help. This has been tough for me as I'm a former vegan and never much liked meat. But if I follow a low to lowish carb diet (~50 grams carbs) with lots of non-starchy veggies my numbers are great. I've read the official diabetic dietary guidelines are so high in carbs because most people simply won't follow them otherwise. HTH

I have pretty strong feelings about this, having been in a relationship where I was the "refused" one before. So I went into marriage knowing I would never say no unless I had a VERY good reason. From my POV if you're in a marriage, and you are your spouse's only sexual release, it's your obligation to make a sincere effort to meet their needs (within reason). Obviously we all have our limits but you have to balance this against the reality that you are all your spouse has, sexually, without breaking serious social and moral boundaries. Feminism seems to say that if you're not 100% in the mood then you're obligated to say no, but within the reality of marriage this isn't a practical attitude. But I'll reiterate-- everything within reason. If your spouse wants to do extreme, painful, or morally questionable things, or if you are ill or have other solid reasons to refuse, then of course you shouldn't feel obligated to go along. But there is a middle ground here that is often ignored. All this goes for both genders, of course.

For some years now NYS had an "obamacare" type model where low and middle income families could buy into state plans on a sliding scale. One year when my husband received a pay increase, we priced out of the low cost options and were charged full rate. The net result was a loss of income-- which is to say we would have had more money had he not taken the pay raise. So this is exactly what many people are going to be faced with in having to choose between higher income or subsidies. I actually told DH not to take the pay raise, but his line of thinking is that income tends to increase exponentially (or at least, that's what used to happen, as someone progressed in their career) and to consciously avoid higher income to garner benefits would be counterproductive in the long run. But very few people think like him, is my impression. The ACA will also disincentivize marriage because of the way household income is calculated to determine premiums and subsidies. It will "pay" if people live together instead of being married. This may not seem like a big deal, but marriage has long been a hallmark of upward mobility and is one of the greatest dividers between rich and poor. And it would be ironic if those who've fought for marriage equality find themselves priced out of marriage and opt just to live together. Not to sound pessimistic, but looking long term, we may be approaching a scenario where it will cost money to have a job. This is already happening in HCOL areas where the only young people who can afford to live there are supported by wealthy parents. If you look at many of the young writers for publications like the NYtimes or Vanity Fair, most come from wealthy families and can "afford" to take a job that only pays 40k a year while their lifestyle in an expensive city is subsidized otherwise.

The study projects that people will be careful not to earn too much so as to keep their subsidies. Some of the loss will also come from fewer full time positions being offered (since employers are not obligated to provide insurance for part time workers). I have difficulty seeing healthcare being tied to income as any kind of "freedom." While true, the coverage is no longer tied to an employer, it is tied to income which will disincentive upward mobility, and hit those who are upwardly mobile with heavier costs (as has already happened-- the solidly middle class and UMC have been hit hard with increased premiums, co pays, deductibles, shrinking pool of in network providers, etc.). A truly fair and freeing system would provide low cost coverage to everyone, like the universal systems in canada and britain.

I'm not catholic but I have never used BC, for my own religious reasons. I don't know if this will be a comfort for you but at age 36 your fertility will likely go into steep decline soon. I was ultra-fertile until age 38 and have since only had miscarriages or just not gotten pregnant at all. Statistics support this so it's not purely anecdotal. It's possible this will be your last baby, whether you want him or her to be or not. Very few women regret their babies once they arrive. There was a study done of women who wanted abortions but either couldn't afford them or were turned away from abortion clinics for medical reasons. Only something like 2% regretted having their children, and strangely, at a follow up years later, a number of women denied ever having wanted an abortion in the first place, it was like their minds simply blocked it out. Again I don't know if any of this is a comfort, but, I think the path our lives take is simply something we have to accept more often than not. We're not as in control as we like to think.

Yes, I've experienced almost exactly what you describe. Faithfully following 1200-1400 with some moderate exercise, and I actually gained a bit. The only way I was able to lose the last 15 lb of baby weight was to restrict to 800/ day. I ate three meals, 200/ 200/ 400, lean protein, greens, and raw fruit. I didn't drop dead and in fact I felt great. As soon as I got to my goal weight I went back to 1200-1400 and right now I experimenting with maintaining eating up to 1500 a day. So far I've kept it off very easily. I also didn't exercise at all, except for the occasional walk. Our bodies are designed to withstand periods of food scarcity. I'm now convinced "going below 1200 will kill you or give you an eating disorder" is BS. I look great, I feel great. I weigh what I did when I got married 17 years ago, and the whole time I ate very healthy and still am doing so. The hunger wasn't that bad after the 3rd day or so. I lost on average 1/2 lb a day with a long stall when I finally dropped the last few pounds. Interestingly, this is what people describe on the hcg diet though I didn't take any supplements or follow the hcg food choices (but that diet is about the same calorie level, maybe a little less?). Take that for what it's worth... this is the best I've felt in a decade.

The gov and his GF have been together for some time, if that's what is in question. They were in the apartment for a while and then traveling for an indefinite amount of time. It was at that point they slept together for the first time. So in theory the only "too fast" relationship at this point is tara's. But we've all probably heard the joke about the u-haul and the cats.