I'm not sure it will. My sense is that he'll probably--because he is not naturally inclined to be overweight--lose the weight very quickly and easily, and then assume that anybody who is fat could become thin if they just ate less and exercised more, since that's what will work for him. Eating to excess in an effort to gain weight above your natural setpoint, and then cutting back to lose that weight, is a very different situation than having a higher natural setpoint. Study after study has found that fat people do not eat more, on average, than thinner people. So making yourself fat through gorging yourself on food, and then stopping gorging and losing weight, is a very different from the situation of your regular overweight/obese person, who does not eat more than the average person.

I don't know. I don't think things will change much. I currently teach part-time, and I plan to keep doing so. When my kids get older and more independent, I'll probably try to pick up more teaching, maybe 3 or 4 classes per term as opposed to the 1 or 2 I teach right now. Then I'll probably just keep doing that once they're done homeschooling.

I was raised in a very mainstream, staid Catholic Church, and I have, as an adult, attended very staid, high-churchy Episcopal churches. I still find myself a bit aghast when somebody lets out an unsolicited "Amen!" or "Alleluia!" during a church service, so I can't imagine I'd have a very positive response to somebody speaking on tongues. That may be and probably is more a reflection on me than on them, but it's what it is. I actually go to a home group at my neighbors' house. There's a few of us from other churches, but most of them go to a charismatic (Vineyard) church. I was asking somebody else who goes, a friend who now goes to my church (an Episcopal/Lutheran congregation) but used to go to their church about it, about whether this was something I should be prepared to see, but she said they have kind of a different way of thinking about tongues.

I agree that it's not lying to ignore her, and it's perfectly appropriate. I also think that it would be fine to remain in some kind of online contact with her, if you wanted, but not to give her your phone number. I'm a big believer in people being able to change; maybe she realized how horrible and difficult she was before, and wants to apologize. Maybe she was addicted to meth and that's why she was so awful and now she's in a 12 step program and wants to make amends with you. Who knows? But you certainly are under no obligation to engage her if you don't want to, and I wouldn't give her my number if I were you, especially not at this point.

And, FWIW, my husband and I are both currently employed. He's had, as I mentioned, jobs washing dishes. I've had jobs picking up garbage at a local pool, working at a day care center, and working the register at a bargain bookstore. I'm not "above" low-paying, menial, or hard work. However, I'm also not going to assume that it's only laziness that would stop somebody from taking a temporary job picking onions or oranges at minimum wage. I'm not going to fault somebody for holding out for a job that is more commiserate with their experience, education, and needs. It's a better decision economically. I'm certainly not going to assume that people with college degrees and/or years of experience working who currently cannot find employment taking these jobs is some sort of panacea for our economic woes. In fact, I really don't see how doing so wouldn't make things worse, because according to everything I understand about economics, that's exactly what would happen. I would really love to know how exactly people think that laid-off union factory workers and unemployed college grads taking these kinds of risky, minimum-wage, temporary jobs would benefit our economy in any way. I was talking about this with my husband, and he's not a particularly traditionalist person, but his response was that what kind of a society has no problem telling women to go work 10-12 hour days doing back-breaking work in a field while leaving their children with somebody they barely know, just so the family can eat? Shouldn't we want better than that? Is wanting better than that for our neighbors really a sign of "entitlement" or "laziness"? Because I have a hard time seeing it that way.

Wow, I have NEVER heard of a migrant farm worker making $20K/season. Are you doing the kind of labor being described here, on the kind of farm being described here? Because, as I said, farming has always been something people have done, enjoyed, and taken pride in. The kind of work we're talking about here, though, has never been. Would it be a wise move, if you were the primary wage earner for your family AND the job didn't provide benefits AND it had a high risk of injury for you to do that job, rather than taking on other work? And, on another level, if there were safe farming jobs that paid $20K for a summer's work--which is NOT the kind of work we're talking about here--would it really be cool for people with advanced degrees to go around snatching them up? I mean, do we want a doctorate to be the requirement for farm work? ;) I mean that in a serious way. Is it good for society or our economy when people take jobs that are way overqualified for? Who is helped? All that does is make it harder for people who have no other options to get those jobs. You are missing the point. These jobs have ALWAYS been reserved for the desperate or forced. Again, why did we need slaves if these jobs are the kind of work that educated, employable people were happy to take? But the problem is that it won't. Most of these jobs pay minimum wage, last for just a few months, have a high risk of injury, and do not provide health insurance. That *isn't* going to be taking a burden off of families. I'm not sure that's a good idea, economically. We don't want people who have the potential to make higher wages taking jobs that are far below their pay scale. That's not elitism; it's capitalism. And, like it or not, we're not going to become a Marxist society any time soon. Plus, there are like 10 million people looking for work in the United States. I'm pretty sure there aren't 10 million jobs doing migrant labor. So even if that was a reasonable economic option, there's not enough positions to go around. But there's a reason why we have unemployment, and it's not because we just want to reward laziness. It's because we do not want people taking, out of desperation, huge pay cuts. That hurts the economy. It is better, economically, for somebody to stay on unemployment for a few months while they find a job with a salary somewhat commiserate to what they were making before than to decide to take on a new career as a cashier at Wal-Mart. Because if they downsize their lifestyle and take on a new career as a cashier at Wal-Mart, while everybody here might applaud them for their strong work ethic and their resolve not to rely on unemployment, they are hurting the economy. They are going to be spending less, and there will be less money, overall, circulating now. That is not what we want. I dislike capitalism as much as the next person ;), but that's what we've got. And college-educated people taking minimum-wage jobs as migrant farm workers is NOT how you keep a capitalist economy going. It's how you destroy one. Of course not. But, there's also no shame is using the safety net as a temporary help when needed. And, many times that will be a better option, practically, than taking certain jobs that will fail to provide your family with the basics, will only be temporary, and could lead to permanent injury. It's not about shame, but practicality. If my husband told me he was going to take a job as a seasonal farm worker, I'd tell him he sure the heck would not be! Not because he's somehow "above" it, but because it would be a stupid, stupid move. He could injure his back leaving him unable to work at all. He would not be making enough to support us. He would not be gaining any useful experience, he would be too exhausted to apply for jobs that would be permanent, and we need health insurance. It would be, quite frankly, idiotic, given our situation, for him to take that kind of job as a means of supporting our family, instead of us relying on unemployment of assistance for a time. Again, it's not about "shame" or "elitism" but economic reality. The idea that everything would be better if unemployed people just started picking onions seasonally for minimum wage is a fantasy. My husband sometimes fantasizes about having a job as a dishwasher. He did it in high school, and he liked it. When he gets stressed out at work, it seems like a nice alternative. I do not support him in this fantasy. It has nothing to do with his being "above" dishwashing work, but with the fact that it would be irresponsible and impractical for him to start working as a dishwasher. And it would most certainly not help the economy if he did that.

Are they important? I know they are for older kids, when they are doing lab science. But is it really important for science experiments to be a part of the curriculum for elementary-aged students? Most of the "experiments" we've done seem more like, as mentioned above, demonstrations, or like art projects. I feel like, in terms of real experimentation and observation, my DS gets more out of just playing, at this point, than he would or could out of formal experimentation.

I would be very put off by that answer, personally. I would absolutely not be willing to order anything until I knew exactly how much I'd be paying.

I'd say we're screwed if they don't offer them, unless we're willing to have public, universal coverage. Do you have any idea how many families go into massive debt and end up bankrupt because of medical expenses? Taking a job without health insurance is a huge, risky gamble that I wouldn't fault anybody for not taking. Okay, we obviously live in different realities. :lol: A few years ago, I had finished my master's degree, and my husband had finished his master's and was working on his doctorate. We needed jobs. I took a part-time job making $7/hour doing retail, and he took a research position that required a master's degree and paid $24K/year. When he got a raise to $32K/year, we thought we were doing fabulously. And, we know LOTS of people who had educations similar to ours and who were in much worse situations financially and would have loved to have been in our position. So this idea that people want to not work and make tons of money just doesn't line up with the reality I see around me. I have lots of friends who have doctorates, loads of student debt, and are taking $18-20K/year postdoc positions because they cannot find anything else. I applied for $18K/year admin assistant positions requiring a college degree and 5 years experience and was told that 300 people had applied. The people I know and the people I see are willing to work hard, and they aren't asking for a whole lot. But they want their hard work to reap something, and putting in a month or two as a farm laborer, in most cases, is simply not going to be worth the potential risks.

Low-paying, dangerous, temporary jobs are there. I'll throw out a hypothetical. My DH has a doctorate. But, academic jobs are pretty scarce. He is in good health but has always had some back issues. Let's say he loses his current job as a research associate and can't find other work. Would it be wise for him to take a job as a temporary farm laborer rather than collecting unemployment or government assistance? He'd be working 10-12 hour days, for minimum wage or maybe a bit more, so we'd still need assistance making ends meet (a full-time minimum wage job pays $15K/year). He would likely not have the time or energy to work on his CV, look for jobs, write up cover letters, and do the other things he'd need to do to find a permanent job. He could very easily injure his back seriously enough doing this work. Why on earth would he decide to take that job when he could collect unemployment or other forms of assistance while he was job searching, and then take a job that, even if it wasn't exactly what he wanted, at least was long-term, provided benefits, and wouldn't cause him injury? Would it really be a wise choice, professionally, economically, or personally, for him to take a job doing temporary farm labor? And "along the line" people decided that these jobs wouldn't be done by certain classes of people? You mean like "along the line" when we captured and bought slaves to do them for us? You think that Americans taking jobs as migrant farm laborers when they are qualified to do other things is the answer to us surviving as a nation and competing globally? Seriously? You think, for example, that the OWS protesters who are saying that, even though they have graduate degrees, they can't find a job, should just take jobs doing temporary farm labor and THAT would turn our economy around? I'm truly baffled. How would that work? To imagine that the problem with our economy is that people aren't willing to take low-paying, temporary jobs rather than that there aren't enough better-paying, stable jobs is to take a position so far afield of everything I understand about economics that I'm not sure how to respond.

I wouldn't go that far. I've seen sentences like that in published work. It's not my preference but, if you read this thread, apparently it is the preference of some people.

Calvinist = TULIP (basically, at least) Total depravity - people are unable, on their own, to choose God because ever part of their being--mind, will, heart, etc.--is fallen Unconditional election - God chooses to save some people simply because he chooses them, not because of merit on their part Limited atonement - Jesus's atoning work was only for the elect Irresistable grace - God's elect can't not be saved Perservernce of the saints - Salvation can't be lost creedobaptist = believer's baptism (as opposed to infant baptism) not dispensationalist - (historic premillenialism is preferred) = not this (basically, not following the kind of endtimes theology you see in Left Behind, where there's the rapture, tribulation, etc.) non-cessationist = the belief that the gifts of the Spirit described in the NT (tongues, healing, prophecy, etc.) are still present and available today At least I think so. ;)

I agree they aren't automatically bad parents or caregivers. I think the point was that, if somebody took one of these jobs and left their child in the care of an undocumented, unlicensed childcare worker, and something happened to that child, the very same people who are now saying, "Why are they too lazy to take these jobs?!" would be saying "Why were they too stupid to find better childcare?!"

I thought most Reformed/Calvinist churches were paedobaptist? If that wasn't a deal-breaker for you, I think you'd probably find quite a few churches that would fit your criteria.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Who has done this sort of labor all throughout American history? Slaves. Sharecroppers. Desperate Depression-era migrants. And now illegal immigrants. Sure, you may get an occasional high school or college student doing it for extra money, but this is not and has never been work that people who want permanent employment to support their families have taken if they have any alternative at all available to them. Are you suggesting that people who have had any other option have ever lined up to take these jobs? I'd be very interested in what you are basing that view on, because it just doesn't seem to line up with historical reality. Offer factory work. Offer retail jobs spending all day on your feet. Offer warehouse jobs lifting boxes. Offer jobs as caregivers in nursing homes wiping people's rears. You will get far more applicants than you have spots for. It's not about hard work, it's about this specific type of work being labor that has ALWAYS been done by people who were either actually forced into it or forced into it by circumstance. And, like I said, that's for good reason. It would be, quite frankly, stupid to take a temporary job that provides low pay and no benefits and that has a high risk for injury when you have a family to support and have the option of turning to things like government assistance for temporary help. It is safer and smarter to take the government assistance and look for permanent employment.

I strongly urge my students to NOT use phrases like "This paper will argue" or "In this paper, I will argue" in their thesis sentences. They bother me. IMO, the thesis sentence should be clear enough that it doesn't need those kind of pointer words.

Christians throughout most of history and in much of the world still are not able to read the Bible daily (either because they lack their own copy or can't read or both). I'd be very hesitant to say that, without reading the Bible, one can't be a Christian or live in a Christ-like way. Certainly many people throughout history have been devoted Christians living Christ-like lives without ever reading the Bible for themselves.

Maybe it was like that a generation ago. Not today. Today, if you want to be an administrative assistant you need a college degree. Things have changed, a lot. Basically, at this point, if you don't want a minimum-wage service job or aren't interested in (or aware of) a very few vocational fields, you need a college degree. I think people are perhaps a bit naive about how our system works. Our culture pushes everybody to get as much education as they possibly can. Everybody is encouraged to go to school for as long as possible. That way, a giant pool of (over)-qualified workers is created, which benefits businesses and drives wages down (and so profits up). This isn't stupid students going to college when they should know better. It's massive, massive profits being made off of them doing so, and so lots of money and effort going into making sure they do.

There's a difference between "holding out for just the right situation" and not taking jobs like this. I took a $7/hour part-time job at a bargain bookstore after grad school. I wasn't "holding out for just the right situation" by any means. There were plenty of jobs that I'd be willing to do. But, quite frankly, I would have gone on government assistance before I started doing seasonal or migrant farm work for minimum wage and no benefits. I'd go as far as to say it would be stupid to do otherwise; to take on a job that is going to be gone soon, that pays little, that has no benefits, and that could quite possibly leave you injured or disabled when you could collect government assistance or unemployment as you apply for other jobs would be a silly, unwise gamble, especially for those with families to support. The only people who take these jobs are people who have either are literally forced to (like the slaves we brought here to do this labor for hundreds of years) or the sharecroppers who were denied any other opportunity, or people who are forced into it because they have not a single other option (migrant farm workers during the Great Depression). Nobody chooses this kind of work. It is not like working on a family farm, at all. It is work that is done by the most outcast/despised in society. Of course you aren't going to get people with any other options at all lining up to do it. It's like asking why we needed slaves at all: why didn't all the poor white people just go volunteer to work for low pay on the plantations? They didn't because if you have any other option at all, you do not and never have done this kind of work. That's just how our society is. My church has a small farm, and we get tons of people volunteering to work on it. Most of them are young, and they aren't getting paid. They like doing it. They aren't averse to hard work. But, they certainly wouldn't be lining up to work as seasonal farm labor, because that is a very different thing. It's different than working in your garden, it's different than working on your own farm, and it's different than working on a small local farm that isn't operating for a profit. And, do we want to live in a country where people need to get up at 4:30 to milk somebody else's cows, then pick somebody else's crops for 12 hours, and then do some more milking before going home to care for their children (who have been watched by undocumented workers all day) just to get by? In what view could that be a good or just society?

I don't do timelines.

I'm wondering where people are getting this idea that, in the past, people were just lining up to do this kind of work? There's a reason we had slave labor and sharecropping, which were horrible, inhumane, and unjust systems, and it's because this kind of work is awful, people don't want to do it voluntarily, and, in order to make the kind of profit people are looking for, the farm owners need to pay as little as possible. We're not talking here about somebody doing work on a family farm, even a very, very large one, which people did indeed willingly and perhaps even happily do and still do. We're talking about the kind of labor that we have always forced upon the people seen as the lowest in society.

DS7 wanted to be a ninja, so we decided it would be cute to dress up all the kids as ninjas.

Not necessarily. Guilty people sometimes end up with punishments that are excessive or unjust, particularly if they can't afford a good lawyer.

In theory, that sounds good; in practice, I'm not sure it would work out that way. So you're working 12 hour days that start at 6 in the morning: who's watching your kids? How are you paying them? Paying for 12 hours/day of childcare, and finding somebody willing to watch your children starting at about 5 or 5:30 in the morning (depending on how long it took you to get to work), would be very expensive. What about health insurance? How much energy would you have at the end of the day to meet your family's needs? How much time and energy would you have left to apply for permanent jobs? These jobs only last for a few weeks or months. If you aren't able to spend time applying for permanent positions during that time, you'll be right back at square one at the end of the season.

This.