Google Fight gives 54,700 hits for "never set foot in" and 10,900 for "never step foot in."

I wrestled with the question this year. There is no question of 'reconciliation': he was a complete stranger who attempted to harm my child, and it's my intent never to encounter him again outside a courtroom. I did, and do, in fact, wish the man harm, in the sense of having actively obtained retributive justice and judicially enforced exclusion from our community and the proximity of any member of my family. He has had no discernible remorse, instead blaming dh and various authority figures for his persecution. I speak necessary ill of him to others quite readily, as good information is their protection. He caused damage, and will be in a position to try to do so again, so I stay vigilant; no forgetting or 'letting go' is practicable. I have a court order on my person at all times that will prevent me from the kind of 'forgiveness' I once thought was a Christian's duty. My confessor observed to me that forgiveness is an act of the will, not an agreeable emotional state nor a healed relationship. In this case, that simply means willing no worse to him than is my obligation. I don't dwell, don't fantasize revenge, and don't kid myself about what he is.

In The Paris Review, the education of Friedrich Schiller: http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2013/03/13/enlightened-schiller-at-the-hohe-carlsschule/ "Despite the school’s professional emphasis, Carl-Eugen stressed that students’ primary area of study was the knowledge of man, the most cherished of Enlightenment values. To that end, classes were given regular essay assignments like “Which student among you has the worst moral character?†Time was set aside for the students to write detailed studies of another’s characters and habits. The first existing piece of Schiller’s writing is one such essay, written when the poet was fifteen years old. Asked to analyze an older student named Karl Kempff, the young Schiller pulls no punches. With an astonishing mix of eloquence, astuteness, and coldness for a fifteen-year-old, Schiller accuses Kempff of mediocrity, egotism, crudeness, envy, malice, and false modesty. Schiller’s brutal honesty is particularly shocking in light of the fact that students could be punished for infractions revealed in the studies. Practically, the reports had the effect of undermining the students’ sense that they were victims of authority by turning them into co-perpetrators. The duke would stand by as the essays were read aloud and chide the students if he felt that they were being insufficiently specific." Now there's a writing prompt for you.

Our plan for next year's Grade 1: English: LLATL, Catholic National Reader, Draw Write Now, lots of reading aloud and being read to. Math: Miquon, Singapore (workbooks only), math games Music: Suzuki cello, choir Religion: St. Joseph's Baltimore Catechism, The Bible Story (Johnson, Hannan) Art, geography, history, science: Baltimore curriculum project, accompanied by coordinated books, discussions, experiments, and field trips.

Makes you go blind, too.

... directed by John Carpenter.

Here's our extradition treaty with Italy: http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/italy.pdf Note article 6. Just because the Italian courts can annul an acquittal on appeal doesn't render the second trial not double jeopardy. I don't see how she could be extradited.

Of course it's a full moon. It's Passover. Or just was. Have a piece of chocolate-covered matzoh.

Or you could respect nature's balance, and get a coyote.

Though seriously.... Get rid of the underbrush and the insects. They go where there's bed and board, and if you trap and move them, their friends will just move in until they have a reason not to.

Armadillo control, via Texas Wildlife Services: http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/txwildlifeservices/files/2011/07/Armadillo.pdf "The best time to shoot armadillos is during the twilight hours or at night by spotlight when they are active. Either a shotgun or rifle can be used." Then you just have to choose ... chicken-fry, or barbecue.

Did you really say "wielding a full-sized axe"?

Full oral arguments here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-307 If you're not sufficiently nerdy to listen through arguments on standing, etc., they start on the merits at 53:50.

We have that same rule! Any time it cools down to the mid-70s, we scrap lessons in the afternoon and go outside and play. :D

Yes, I thought he was right in seeing that as explanatory for why the Court would grant cert. on a second SSM case when they haven't even decided the first. ETA: Wow, that sounded all full of myself, didn't it? "I think one of the country's most renowned experts in Supreme Court litigation was right." Goldstein can sleep well tonight.

Try the Oyez Project. And for good commentary in almost-real-time, Scotusblog.

Maybe, but it's not like people currently, under the unilateral no-fault divorce regime, really incur such obligations, do they? People abandon their disabled spouses all the time. If it's the moral obligation you mean, I completely agree, but that isn't affected by state recognition.

I hope you didn't read my post as saying I would object to your being married - I was only addressing public policy issues of marriage. It seems time for the state to stop caring about who marries whom, and confine its attention instead to the welfare of children.

That's not exactly the issue. As with some similar high-profile cases, the question is whether a person engaged in commercial activity is refusing to provide goods or services to persons because of their sexual orientation, in violation of a statute that makes sexual orientation a protected category, or whether the person is refusing to engage in expression with which they disagree, which refusal is protected by the first amendment. So in this example, if the baker had refused to make or sell a generic cake for a same-sex couple, even if it was for the purpose of an activity (e.g. same-sex wedding) which he found objectionable, that would undoubtedly not be permissible if there were a statute prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. But if he refused to create a personalized wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, a court might be willing to see that as expressive speech that he couldn't be coerced into. An analogy: A white supremacist could refuse to print MLK t-shirts because he didn't want to express support for civil rights; but he could not refuse to print them because the persons wanting the shirts printed were black. I might be misremembering, but I thought in Boston it wasn't because they were receiving government funds, but because they had to be licensed by the state to operate an adoption agency and could not be licensed if they discriminated based on sexual orientation. But I'm too lazy to Google and am willing to be corrected on the facts. So, before this thread gets shut down: When I'm elected Philosopher-King, this is how marriage will work. Any two adult persons may be married by anyone who wishes to unite them in wedlock, and the state will take no legal interest whatsoever. As soon as one of the persons gets pregnant, finalizes an adoption, or otherwise legally acquires custody or guardianship of a child, both adults immediately acquire all the tax breaks, etc. of marriage, and furthermore incur extreme legal and financial penalties for separation, abandonment, or divorce - unless abuse can be proved - until such time as there are no longer minor children in their care. Some tweaking no doubt necessary. But it should make everyone equally (un)happy.

We were on a snow flurry alert once, a couple of years ago. We waited all morning, looking out the window. For about fifteen minutes, flakes fell from the sky (though they melted as they hit the ground. Middle Girl and Wee Girl danced in the "snow" and no work was done that morning. Middle Girl later admitted being surprised by the tiny flakes; cut-out paper snowflakes had led her to expect something quite a bit larger. So yes, I suppose we took a snow day that day.

We toyed with several oh-so-clever names, but quickly discovered that competition organizers really, really wanted homeschoolers, if not competing as part of a larger homeschool organization, to enter as "Lastname Homeschool," because it made everything so much easier. So there we are: boring, but convenient. A friend signs up his family, though, as "Lastname Homeschool and War College," which I suppose meets everybody's needs.

Good Apple has some amazing civics curricula. "Our Living Constitution" and "Everyday Law For Young Citizens" do a great job of introducing constitutional, civil, and criminal law. The latter uses the case law approach used in law schools: a set of facts is set out, the appropriate law is explained and applied, and the facts are tweaked to see if and how the outcome changes.

I don't think that's necessarily too much, especially given the weekly nature of several of the subjects. I really need to plan out my fifth grade....

Maybe this would be more obvious if I were familiar with the unit; but it took a second reading for me to realize that Heywood must have been the writer of the "You can lead a horse..." maxim. Maybe his authorship could be more directly stated?

Wee Girl was supposed to write a sentence about a make-believe thing, and instead spent the day writing a whole story - her first composition ever. (Her writing deteriorated as it went along; she began slowly and carefully, but she descended into a writing frenzy as the story continued. I notice the influence of dh's readaloud of Alice in Wonderland, and some Britishisms that must come from her Enid Blyton addiction. Also she has apparently inherited her parents' partiality toward parentheticals.) ------------------------ The plant that grew to the moom. Once there was a plant that was very tiny, and was in a pot, in a shop. The shop keeper was just taking it out wean someone burst in cring I want it! I want it!, so the shopkeeper had to give it to him, But the shopkeeper didnot now it would grow to the moon. so he went with his head up and smiling. when he got home he went amedely [immediately] and plantid it. The nexst day, the plant had got much biger, infakt it was twice its szie now. this went on for days and days intil it reached the moon. one day, it grew sideways, and bumped into the moon. and the man was waching all this. then the man climed up the plant, (for it was vrey strong.) wean the man got to the moon, he climed on to it and lookd down, now, just then the shopkeeper came roud the cornr to ceak [check] on the plant, wean he saw the plant he did not rcanis [recognize] it (for it was very tall) now the shop keeper saw the pot so the shop keeper wadrd [wandered] abuot so he came to the big plant and climbed upit (for it was still strong) now wean he reached the top the frist thing he saw was the preason [person] wean the prason saw the shop keeper he treid to run away but he fell of the moon insted. now whean the man fell of the moon he realiszed that he cluod wlak so he wlaked alot, and he fell, now (you now he fell on the ground) whean he got to the ground he was on his head he fellt a holl opuning up he fell in, the baker wantid to go to so fell in to in the holle They fell down and down and down they saw breads and caekcs and plants when thay got to the bothem they saw a lader that lead to the shlvs so they cimbed up it but wean they wrae [were] down and had stardid ething [eating] the food sliped ot of the mans mouth morl: dont be bad if you want good things. ---------- When she finished, she read it to me and then said, "I am very tired of writing 'shopkeeper.'"