Dh and I are stuck. We don't know what to get Dd for her birthday. She'll be turning 11. Past presents she has loved: Fashion stencil drawing books Rainbow loom Sewing supplies Spa supply making kit Simple cook books Plush cats Ceramic cats Books about cats Comic books (Calvin and Hobbes, Garfield, etc.) If you didn't notice, she loves cats and crafts. Any gift ideas? Non-cat or craft ideas are also welcome, as we wouldn't mind helping her expand her interests.

I agree with others on Song School Latin, and Tales from the Odyssey mentioned above. Also Michael Clay Thompson English, Building Foundations of Scientific Understanding, Getting Started With Latin, Miquon math, and All About Spelling. Another great book we've used as a spine for a year of science is The New Way Things Work. I also agree with others that more information on how to homeschool or recommendations of your lectures would be lovely.

Week 6 Day 2 done. I had to pick a longer route. I started this going a little more than a mile. Last week I was going 1.7 miles. My new route is 2.25 miles. I think it will last a couple of weeks, but I'll need to move up to a whole 3 miles after that. :) I hope your ankle heals soon Greta!

It was almost like there was an off switch. When we were done we just no longer wanted more children. If we had one accidentally, we would love and care for it of course, but our family feels complete. We didn't know where that point would be until we reached it.

DH is often on call at night, and therefore has to leave his phone on. It's been like this for 5 years. No matter how many times he explains this, he still gets random texts, mostly from his mom, at odd hours. He'll reply immediately and she'll text back, "You weren't supposed to get that until morning!" He then explains again that he can't turn his phone off because of work, and she'll tell him again that she thought he turned his phone off because his brother does. Sigh. But he doesn't want to block her at night either because there might be an emergency and we don't have a landline. FWIW, she has been doing this less often lately.

Week 6 Day 1 done. It was actually a little harder than the 20 minute jog. I think it was because I was expecting it to be easier, and I had to check my stopwatch more often. And probably because I was tired too.

I don't know about specific curriculum, but as with any language, conversation with people who are fluent is indispensable.Is there a local Deaf Center you can volunteer at once you get some curriculum under your belt? Community Ed classes? Someone who knows someone who is Deaf? I got an associates degree in ASL interpreting, and I learned the most by far when conversing with Deaf people. Language learning is something you need other people for.

Actually all my kids (except the baby) are going to public school next year for a variety of individual reasons. Though I really enjoy homeschooling, if I'm being honest I'm kind of excited to have a year off. We'll see what happens the next year. I do hope you get feeling better. Don't neglect yourself.

DONE! And I actually could have jogged past the 20 minutes. This coming from someone who would nearly cry when required to run the mile in high school. For the first time I am experiencing runner's high. :)

I'll second trader joe's. I had a close friend who worked there and loved it. Great people to work with, great benefits, and a lot of understanding with life's complications. My friend is diabetic and her boss had no problem with the occasional issues she had from it.

I hope you feel better soon!

Week 5 day 2 done. I'm going to attempt day 3 tomorrow. Matrips, you are my inspiration.

I'm okay :). I just got a few scrapes. They still sting a little, but I didn't seriously injure anything. The iPod had it much worse than I did. I even found a very cheap replacement for my son's iPod. He's excited because this one is even better than the one I broke. My BIL gave ds the old one for his birthday that a friend was going to throw away. He figured an 8 year old would be thrilled with any form of electronics, no matter how obsolete and broken down (the home button didn't even work). I don't have an anything that plays music, so I've been borrowing his. Thanks for the concern. :) I'll be back on track tomorrow. Eagle, thanks for the advice from your marathon friend! I'm going to try walking more slowly and see if it helps.

I tried w5d2 today, but 3 minutes in I tripped, scraped myself up, and smashed my son's iPod screen. Ugh. I just walked back home. I'll try again tonight or tomorrow. Now to go looking on eBay for a junky old iPod to replace the junky old iPod I broke.

I did w5d1, but I think I need to stop looking ahead. It's getting scary. I haven't had to repeat anything yet, and I will give it my all. But I don't know if I'm going to make it on day 3. Hopefully I'll surprise myself! :)

In the past we've used a shoe tree. Now we just have a mess in the coat closet.

Risk Clue King of Tokyo Sorry Wildcraft

Week 4 done!

My almost 11 year old has no interest in boys. She does have the occasional fleeting interest in make-up, but I tell her she's too young and she's fine with that.

So I’ve read your links and you bring up some interesting points. Through this remember that separating church and state are discussions of institutions, not people. I am a member of a church and a citizen of a state, but I am still one person, so what I do personally with my vote will be a reflection of my beliefs, as with every other citizen. I do not separate myself into a church side and a state side, and it would be unreasonable to ask anybody to section off their personality in any way when it came time to vote. 1st link – When any candidate is running for office their background will be brought into play. It would be foolish to vote for someone without knowing their history. Since many Americans are religious, it makes sense many candidates will have religious backgrounds. Since many Americans are religious it also makes sense that many Americans will want to know about those backgrounds. Since people tend to prefer voting for like-minded people, it makes sense that similar religious views might be an attraction to voters. I do not think one’s religion ought to be one’s entire platform (as it unfortunately is sometimes), but expecting people to ignore the religion of candidates isn’t realistic in this country. It also doesn’t have much to do with the taxation of churches, since candidates are running as individuals, and not as official representatives of their churches. 2nd link – We agree here that the law regarding churches endorsing candidates should be enforced. Any church telling its members how to vote should be penalized. If churches are no longer granted their special tax-exempt status though, then they should be allowed to back candidates, as they are no longer a separate entity from the state. That is something neither of us wants to see happen, which is one reason I am against taxing churches. I have a hard time understanding what exactly you want here. You want churches to be taxed, and you don’t want them to tell followers how to vote. I don’t think you can have it both ways. And again, I realize there are some churches violating the law here, but in my opinion the enforcing of the law is a better solution than figuring that they’ll get away with it anyway so let’s tax all churches. 3rd link – I’ll admit to unfamiliarity with lobbying laws. I was under the impression that churches could not lobby, though citizens who are members of churches are welcome to lobby for their beliefs. This quote sounds reasonable to me: ‘“the law treats those who wish to lobby motivated by their religious beliefs the same way it treats those who wish to lobby motivated by their feminist beliefs, their socialist believes, their support for Tea Party ideas and the like. They can raise money to speak out; they can contact elected officials; they can contact heads of regulatory agencies; they can submit amicus curiae briefs — all of the many forms of lobbying — without registering as professional lobbyists. “However, if a church or religious organization sets up an outfit that will employ professional lobbyists, the lobbyists must register like other professionals,†he continued. “That distinction seems both reasonable and fair.â€â€™ People ought to be able to vote and affect change in government according to their beliefs, religious or otherwise. The link does not mention the tax status of groups that lobby based on faith. Someone up thread said that those are subject to taxes just like all other lobbying groups. That seems reasonable. I think we’ll both agree that there ought to be more transparency in lobbying and government in general. I don’t think a lobbying group based on religious beliefs should be treated differently than any other lobbying group. But a church is separate from a lobbying group. I’m a bit fuzzy on how the whole thing works with the involvement of churches in lobbying. Maybe others with more political knowledge and experience can sort it out better than I can. I’m going to leave this thought unfinished, as I don't think I have enough understanding to make sound arguments any direction. 4th link – I’m not a fan of creationism in school. I don’t think taxing churches is the answer here. My original point is that taxing churches would give them more of a foothold in politics, because if they are taxed they can demand the right of representation. So here is how I see it, and you can correct me if I’m wrong. We both want separation between church and state. My solution would be to enforce current laws regarding churches and politics, and push for less murky lobbying rules regarding churches. I’d even be fine (as I originally, but wrongly, thought the law said) if no church funds could go toward lobbying. There would still be faith-based lobbying groups, just as there are many other belief-based lobbying groups, but they would be under the same rules as other groups, and could receive no funding from churches. I would like to push church and state further apart, and I see taxing churches as an invitation for them to be fully active politically. I’m not 100% of sure your stance, but from what I gather you would love for churches to have nothing to do with the state, but since they are going to break laws anyway, they should be taxed like anyone else. I don’t know if you would be fine legalizing complete church involvement in state, but I don’t see any other way for them to be subject to the same taxes. We’ll probably just agree to disagree on this one, but this discussion has made me look into things that I had just assumed before, so it was not worthless. I’m probably not going to be spending much more time on this thread, as it will likely keep repeating itself. Best wishes.

I want to give a thoughtful reply, but currently don't have time to read your links. I'll get back to you later tonight when I've got more time for research. Just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you. :)

Should churches be able to actually receive government money through grants? Should candidates start having the official backing of specific churches? And I think if some of the larger churches were allowed to actively lobby for themselves you would see a difference. Again, when churches do breach the line of church and state they should be brought under the penalty of law. I don't advocate churches crossing the line under the guise of freedom of speech. Church and state need to be separate.

Sorry I missed that. I admit I haven't read all the posts or links on this thread. Thank you for already stating it!

This topic seemed to be going nowhere, so I left it for a while, and just now checked up on it. It still seems to be a cyclical discussion. But here is what's been going through my head. Our constitution declares a separation between church and state. I think we all agree that church and state should be separate. Once one starts getting into the other's business, then the other can do the same. Churches are not supposed to get involved in matters of state. They are not supposed to lobby, or support specific candidates. Whether or not they do has been argued a bit on this thread, but regardless, it is illegal for them to do so. The State stays out of the churches' business. They don't tax them or tell them what they can believe or how they can operate (assuming they're not trying to do human sacrifices or other such practices.) Neither is funding the other. I do not agree with the argument that because churches are not taxed, they are supported by the tax payers' money. I think that is a huge leap. The government does not write checks to churches. They do write checks to many non profits such as planned parenthood, but not to churches. They are separate. If churches are taxed, then they should have the right to have a say in government. They should be able to have a voice in where their tax money goes, just like private citizens and businesses that pay taxes. We all know the arguments about taxation without representation. If churches start paying taxes, then they should have the right to lobby and support candidates, and petition for government grants. Since they are not taxed, they can claim no right to representation by the state. The way things are, church and state can be separate. Now, if some churches are breaching their line, that means law enforcement needs to come into play, not that they need to be taxed. If we don't want a theocracy, we need to keep the complete separation between church and state. This will probably just become part of the circle this discussion is going in, but I thought I ought to add my thoughts.

W4 d2 done. Still just as hard physically, but mentally easier because I knew I could do it this time. Can't stop sweating though.