Audible just added a bunch of Great Courses to their collection. I'm excited, but I'm not sure where to start (they are so new that there haven't been any reviews posted yet). Do you have a couple you could recommend from personal experience? :) Here's the link (I hope this works, I'm on an iPad): http://www.audible.com/mt/TheGreatCourses/ref=hp_c2_1_COURSES

And you're just trying to save lives, how noble!

As usual, Bill, the most important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to other people while shaming their choices.

I read this out loud to my husband, and his immediate reply was, "Can I see the picture?" I guess he'll have to learn to live with disappointment.

Return of the Jedi is too explicit? And Temple of Doom? O.o

Just for reference, non-Christian camp counselors don't usually pee their pants in public, either.

Until she finds a job, she should be required to volunteer 20 hours per week. A homeless shelter would be my top choice. She desperately needs some perspective.

I know!! And how does it make sense that we can EAT eggs but they treat them like a hazardous product? You can't, say, use them to make medieval paint without asking permission with a blasted form!

Well, there are some downsides to living in the country with most lawyers on earth. I'm thinking by the wording that they aren't as relaxed as your fair! I might email them just to be absolutely sure. Here are the rules verbatim: If you are working with ANY of the following items, you must have a "Qualified Scientist" to supervise your work and be approved by a local SRC Committee BEFORE beginning the project! You must also attach additional ISEF forms as shown on p. 3 of this form. a) Projects involving Humans (for example projects with surveys, tests, reaction times or exercise. This includes if the student studies his/ herself). B) Micro-organisms – this includes any project with bacteria and fungi (See ISEF Rules on page 13 for complete list). Students can NOT grow bacteria at home. Teachers/Parents read additional rules for projects with micro-organisms. *** Because of the risks and safety rules associated with culturing bacteria, these projects are restricted to junior and senior divisions ONLY. c) Vertebrate Animals – this includes pets, farm animals, fish, and wild animals. Special rules apply for work with eggs and embryos. d) Potentially Hazardous Biological Agents - in addition to micro-organisms this would include any work with human or animal tissues, blood or body fluids, fresh or frozen and recombinant DNA technologies. As with bacteria, these projects are restricted to Junior and Senior Divisions only. e) Hazardous Chemicals, Activities or Devices or using Regulated Substances - examples: projectiles, rockets, gasoline, biofuels, alcohol. Check MSDS sheet for any chemical hazards. f) Projects done in Regulated Research Settings: Projects done in professional research laboratories (university or industrial) – including where the parent is the scientist.

Thanks for posting pictures of the posters! It is especially cool being able to see the pigments your younger son made. Okay, I just checked out the rules for our regional science fair, and I'm having a WTF moment. 1. Any experiment that involves "human participation" or "vertebrate animals" (not to mention bacteria, etc. but elementary students aren't allowed to do that at all) requires a Qualified Scientist to advise the student. I looked at the QS form, and said person must have a degree (didn't specify what level) in the area of study the student is experimenting in. The QS has to *supervise* the experiement. Really?! There's very little wiggle room there. My husband has a degree in physics, but unless all our kids plan on doing physics experiments year after year, that means we'll have to get outside help. How many professors are going to take ~100 hours to mentor a homeschooled student for free? :( The only way I can see around this is basically lying. Getting a professor to sign off on forms, notebooks, etc. but be very hands off. I think this rule is biased against homeschoolers--I bet public schooled students can get their science teachers to stand in as QS. A lot of teachers are probably already holding hands with students in after-school science programs (versus parents). 2. The student must submit a proposal to the regional board to get his experiement approved before he can lift a finger on the project. Talk about beurocracy. This makes it really difficult if a kid, such as Ruth's older son, decides to switch projects. You can bet that it's not a stamp-and-go approval, and the time involved to get something approved may mean that the kid is stuck with his initial idea no matter what. 3. It's 3rd grade and up. Students younger than 8 years old can't participate. :( This is discouraging. Not insurmountable, but definitely discouraging.

The guy in the tux falls under the "uncharismatic" heading. Someone who is socially retarded (I mean that in its true sense, not as a derogatory term) and tries to compensate for it by acting in the way they *think* they should, but actually comes off as "strange" or "awkward" or "trying too hard."

Profiling someone based on certain criteria is quantifiable. May I ask how _you_ profile a potential sexual predator? I don't think that word applies unless you are logically, methodically making an assessment based on certain criteria. Even if you were doing that (versus forming an emotional impression), you'd probably have as much luck as a professionally trained agent--that is to say, not much, because the overwhelming majority of traits are usually carefully kept hidden from not only strangers, but friends and family. That's why even people who track down child molesters for a living don't boast about a "gut instinct" being a reliable method of fettering out criminals (unless you're a detective in a crummy crime novel). It doesn't really exist and all they can hope to do is find EVIDENCE that a sloppy criminal left behind. Not even the best policemen, detectives or agents can "profile" someone just by virtue of a first impression (the studies are there, and they all come back the same--it doesn't work). Weighing the risks, being suspicious of people you don't know, not getting into a car with strangers, etc. are all things that we ALL decide to do or not do based on our summation of the risks involved. Please don't confuse "red flags" like a stranger offering you money for nothing in return for, say, having the ability to somehow, some way, "instinctively" know whether a person is trustworthy. Those are two different things.

There is no such thing as a "creepometer" or "sixth sense" that magically lets you know who is a sexual predator or serial killer. The fact that people still peddle this idea makes me angry, both because it lures people into a sense of false security and because it gives people something (however flimsy) to fall back on when they desperately don't want to believe that their neighbor/brother/cousin/whatever is a criminal. And yes, there's a big element of, "That could never happen to ME, becuase I would have just KNOWN that he was a terrible person instinctively!" If there really was some spidey sense that could identify criminals a mile away, there would be no victims of violent crimes, would there? Come to that, most of the politicians in D.C. would never be elected. Here's the thing--often, people who are dangerous have learned that to get what they want, they need to create a persona that people trust and like. The people you *think* are creeps are usually pretty harmless, fyi. Most of the time, when someone says they think a guy is a "creep," what they really mean is that he is uncharismatic, or unbathed, or low class, or odd-looking. I've also seen people retroactively change their story about their so-called supernatural creepdar. Before a man was caught, they thought he walked on water. After he was convicted, they said, "I always knew there was something 'off' about him, I could just tell! Always listen to your gut!" Ugh. And I've also seen it used to excuse the actions of a criminal. "I just don't think he's guilty. I would have KNOWN. I have a sense about these things." When you claim you have some kind of psychic powers about this kind of thing, please realize how belittling it is to the people who have been victims of violent crime. You're basically implying that only very dumb people would ever allow themselves to be fooled by a criminal (and isn't it their own fault for not TRUSTING THEIR GUT omg?). You are saying that we all have some innate psychic power we can draw upon to protect ourselves and our children--when in fact no study ever conducted has found a shred of evidence for it. Furthering the idea that you can draw upon some sort of sixth sense to determine who is trustworthy and who is not only leads to one thing: more victims of crime. It makes people think that first-hand impressions have greater meaning than they really do. It makes people fall for the charismatic persona even more than they would otherwise. In short, it makes it easier for these monsters to do what they do best--earn the trust of unsuspecting people so that they can hurt them.

There's a service that does this for you: http://1dollarscan.com/ If you Google "1dollarscan review" the reviews are pretty positive. I first heard about it by reading the review on GeekDad. I think it's a great idea, especially for magazines (National Geographic, etc.). The longer the book, the more they charge. They also charge more for full color than just black and white. But really, considering how much time you would save over doing it yourself, it's a great deal. I just can't bring myself to do it because we are so attached to our print copies!

Thanks for all the feedback. I'm giving it a lot of thought and will be back later to comment more. I just want to quickly pop in to clarify that this group is not affiliated with a church. My Christian friends do not attend the same church as this couple, and my DH and I are atheists. It's just an informal social group, plus a book club. Because Steve and Sue were so very religious, when this came out there were several people in the community who honed in on that. Some non-Christians pointed out the discrepency. Some Christians who were friends with them distanced themselves from them. And to be honest, I think maybe my friends got caught up in this aspect of, "People are targetting them because they are professing Christians who sinned. But we all sin, so we aren't going to judge them." Sigh.

There's a couple we know in our HS social group. We aren't really friends...I mean, we have never spent time together alone. But they're good friends with our good friends, and we often see them at social gatherings. I'll call them Steve and Sue. A little while ago, it was discovered by the local business Steve worked for that he had been embezzling from them for years. Thousands and thousands of dollars--we don't have an exact number (the business is only pursuing the cases that are most concrete so they can be sure to get a conviction). Steve and Sue admitted to it. Steve said this was an awakening for him to come to Christ (even though they were super religious before this, but whatever). All our good friends are "standing by them." They say that as Christians, they feel that they should forgive his sin and accept his apologies. As far as I am concerned, if you do not "repent" until you get caught, then you're not really sorry. You're just sorry you got caught. I have kept my opinion to myself, but Sue has said on FaceBook that "you can't get blood from a turnip" in response to someone asking if she is concerned about their family being required to pay restitution when it goes to court. So even though they admit their guilt (they schemed together), they aren't in the least bit interested in paying back what they owe. Steve has also said on FB that he appreciates the Christians who are standing by him, and he prays for those who are not walking with him in Christ, yadda yadda. In other words, he's calling any Christian who doesn't stand with him un-Christ-like. If you ask me, their attitude has not been what I would call "repentant." Honestly, I am fed up. I think these self-righteous hypocrites are throwing a never-ending pity party when they should be humble and gracious. Saying "I'm sorry" without deeds (e.g. paying the business back in small increments) is worthless. I am appalled that my Christian friends, who are always going on about "by their fruits shall ye know them" are not calling them out on any of this. (I'm not Christian, fwiw.) I know it's different, but I can't help but think that this kind of mentality, where you ignore past and present behavior because they are friends and "good people," is the same M.O. for people who stand by "pillars of the community" who are discovered to be pedophiles. I can't help but feel that my friends are giving this couple a free pass. Steve and Sue are thieves. They've been thieves for years. They are still being judgmental and are not interested in repaying the victims of their crimes. They are acting like they are being "persecuted" and that they are martyrs. Bleh. I guess the point of this post is, would you be honest with your friends about how you feel about Steve and Sue? So far when it has come up, I've passed the bean dip. Honesty is extremely important to me, so I hate keeping my feelings from them. I know I'll have to see this couple at certain events we're all signed up for, so if I just kept my feelings hidden, it'd be a lot easier to avoid them without anyone noticing. How would you deal with this situation? I feel like I am being a hypocrite by caving to social pressure to not even express myself in the confidence of my friends for fear of offending them. No matter how nicely I put it, the implication would be that they too are doing wrong by standing by them. Maybe I'm just being too judgmental. I don't know.

I love the idea of a color coded calendar!

We're thinking about schooling year round with this schedule. The week off would always be at the end of the month, which corresponds nicely to Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc. We'd also take an extra week or two for a family vacation somewhere in there. My only concern is that perhaps it's too...choppy? I have this image of kids getting into the routine of things and then wham, it's time for a week-long break. Am I going to have to constantly wrangle them back into "school mode"? If you do the 3-1 rotation, do you do "light schooling" during the week off or just let them do whatever they feel like? Assuming they aren't catching up on missed work. I'd love to hear about what has worked for you and what hasn't.

Pizza delivery drivers usually get paid at least $7/hour, from what I've read online. In my small town, they get $10/hour. Waiters get around $2/hour in most states. That's a big difference. Delivery drivers are not relying on tips to round out their pay to the degree that waiters do. There are two kinds of tipping, generally. The "Great job! Here's a little extra!" kind, and the "Here is your compensation for the services rendered" kind. The reason waiters are paid so low (a "contract wage" it is called) is that their customers are supposed to be providing their pay directly. And as a former waitress, I am a huge proponent of this system--I think it creates better customer service, has a better chance of weeding out poor waiters, and in the end provides higher pay compared to working in fast food or what have you. Should delivery drivers get the same percentage tip as waiters? No, because they are not contract employees--the government has decided that pizza companies should employ them the full wage and that it should be sufficient to cover the costs of gas and such. Maybe you think they should be paid more, and thus you'll give them 15% or 20% or whatever. That's up to you, and I think it's always kind to give someone who doing their job well something extra no matter what it is. However, we shouldn't blur the lines here and act as if the two jobs are the same. Waiters and delivery drivers are operating on a fundemantally different premise. On a personal note, what do I tip delivery drivers? We never order delivery, so I can't really answer that. We always do carry-out.

I believe that children have to be taught to play independently. It doesn't come naturally. The first thing I would do is create a schedule for each day of the week on a poster board. This isn't meant to be slavishly followed, but it gives you a framework. It's 4 PM and your son says he's bored? Take a look at the schedule--he can either practice his goalie kicking (solo) outside or he can play Legos. I like to give two options that are slightly different, even if he doesn't normally play with Legos. When making your schedule, Google ideas for boys. Maybe you could provide him with some superhero costumes for dress up. Maybe your husband can set up a basketball goal so that he can shoot hoops by himself. Give him one of those mini trampolines that he can bounce on by himself without supervision. What if he refuses to do what the schedule suggests and he begs you to play with him? Just say no. He will whine, cajole and give you a guilt trip, but after a week, he'll start to adjust to the new routine. It's important for kids to learn how to entertain themselves. It's helps creative play and teaches them how to distract themselves (which comes in handy when he's having to wait in line at the grocery store). I also think something is lost when a kid's play time is dominated by an adult, who inserts their own narrative into the play (whether that is over-praising for the smallest behaviors or stifling the kid's creativity by always coming up with the meat of the interactive play). If it's a particularly hard adjustment, instead of going cold turkey, start by scheduling an hour (or half hour, if that's all he can do at first) of independent play a day. If you can, take him to the playground (an empty one is best, but work with what you have). If you can, make this a mother-son activity that excludes your 2 year old (can your husband watch him for a little while?). He's probably used to you following him around like a puppy, going down slides together, pushing his swing, or at least watching attentively from your seat as he shouts, "Watch this!" Do none of that. Make it clear that you are going to read a book while he plays for an hour. He is not to call your name or ask for help unless he is bleeding. Pick a phrase that you can invoke at other times when you're not at the playground, such as, "Son, I need you to play independently for the next hour." Of course, you will be slyly keeping an eye on him as you read for that hour, but he won't know that. You should let him know you are serious about not being interrupted, and that by disobeying you, he will be disciplined for every infraction (time outs or whatever it is that you do). Do not give warnings--calmly discipline for each infraction the first time it happens. But don't leave the park until the hour is up, even if you spend more time giving him time outs than you do reading. The point is that it will only take one or two daily park trips for him to realize that the rules have changed. At first he won't know quite what to do with himself, but soon he will be chattering to himself as he jumps from one play area to the next. Kids constantly push boundaries to see what they can get away with. But the flip side to that is that they are remarkably adaptable, and if you are firm, he will change to suit the new environment. Once he's become used to playing by himself, you can start doing it at home (the schedule helps prompt him to what he can do). You'll feel like a Mean Mom at first, but remember that the difference between sentiment and love is that a person who is just sentimental about a child will give in to everything the child asks for because it makes the parent feel warm and fuzzy (and maybe a bit of a martyr), while a parent who loves their child has to do things that are hard and unpleasant in the short term out of the best interests of the child. You have to choose between short-term strife as he adjusts to the new boundaries or long-term strife as he monopolizes your time.

This looks interesting! Have you used it?

I know a mom of six kids under the age of six. She's pregnant with her seventh. She's sending a children's book she wrote last year out to some agents. Her family runs a farm--rabbits, pigs, chickens, ducks, etc. plus winter and summer crops (on top of her husband's full time job). She's sewing a quilt. She hosts a book club. Her house is amazingly clean. She cans, makes her own flour, and pretty much cooks everything from scratch. She homeschools her four oldest children. I don't look at her and think about how "enough" is enough or different strokes for different folks. I just think I'm a hell of a lot more lazy than her. It makes me realize that I'm pretty much lying to myself when I think, "Oh, I'm too busy to do X" or "I can't do Y." The truth is that we all choose what standard to live up to. It's just a matter of priorities, self-discipline and how much we really, truly want those things. I mean, I'd love to be like that mom. But not enough to change my current lifestyle. I honestly think that's all it boils down to.

Mint.com has changed the way we budget. There are so many graphs it gives you to show what you're spending and how. You can create budgets for your overall spending by month, as well as restaurant budget, grocery budget, entertainment budget, etc. You can also set it so that you receive an email alert when you're over budget. If you check in with the website or app, you can see how much you've spent this month and how close that is to where you should be in order to stay under budget by the end of the month. It's great.

http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/091298645X/ This book is excellent and discusses most of the topics you mentioned.

I'm a Firth fan, but come on. The mini series was way overacted by everyone except Firth himself.