I don't know. In preschool and kindergarten, the vast majority of my son's classmates had traditionally-spelled names (not necessarily traditional names, but names that were spelled the way you'd expect). Same with my students (college freshman). There's always a few who have really creatively-spelled names, but most don't. I think perhaps we see the trend more online than in real life. Some of the name ideas I've seen people throw around on pregnancy/parenting boards look nothing like any name I've ever encountered in real life.

We can also ask that internationally, though. Why do we, in the U.S., have such high rates of incarceration? Are our citizens less moral than the citizens of France or Germany or Spain? If so, why? If not, then what accounts for the huge difference in incarceration rates?

Certainly the lack of long-term services for the seriously mentally ill and addicted--especially if they don't have family to advocate for them--compounds the problem. We let so many mentally ill people out on the streets in the 1980s, when we stopped funding long-term care, and now it seems like many bounce between jail/prison and homelessness.

I don't think parents/schools get the blame or credit. I have very nice handwriting (especially if I'm writing slowly). I always have. My sister, on the other hand, does not. Everything she writes looks like a ransom note. ;) We were both instructed in the same way. We put, as far as I can tell, the same amount of effort into it--in fact, she probably put in more, because people were always trying to get her to improve her handwriting. Just like some people are better at drawing than others, I think some people are better at handwriting than others.

I don't think it's necessary that PS gives kids too many breaks. In fact, if anything, I think it's the opposite. I think that kids are given so little chance to get up and move around that, when kids do have that opportunity, they jump at it.

We incarcerate far, far too many people in this country. The reasons for it are complex (a large part, I think, it not just that we prosecute too much, but that we allow so little leeway in sentencing for many crimes, which means that people automatically end up serving a sentence of a certain length regardless of the level of risk they pose or whether that time will actually rehabilitate them), and there aren't, I don't think, easy solutions, but I do think that it's something that urgently needs to be addressed, especially since we're just locking up more and more people each year. Personally, I'd like to see us move toward more of a restitution-based system for non-violent crimes. Not to say we'd do away with prison time for that, but that restitution would at least be considered as an alternative in some cases.

My boys have very traditional names, with the tradition spelling. My DD is Theresa. I had liked Teresa, but she's named after one of her great-grandmothers, whose name was spelled with the "Th". In that case, it was more a matter of picking between two common spellings. But, at this point it's moot, because she's Tess, and nobody ever says or writes Theresa, anyway.

Every generation has been complaining about how the generation after them is the worst generation ever for about as long as there have been generations. That's not a game I'm willing to play. How have things changed since I was a kid? Parents are waaaaaaay more protective. I had a mom who would have, when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, been considered really nervous and overprotective, and yet even the most laid-back parents I know today don't let their children have the freedom that I had. I do think that negative impacts all of us: adults get more frustrated with their kids, because their kids are always around, and kids never have a chance to be free from adult eyes. I'd say that, on a personal level, I probably have more of a friendly relationship with my son than I had with my parents. It's definitely not primarily a friendly relationship, but I feel like we are friendly with each other in a way I wasn't with my parents. A lot of that, I think, is just a function of spending so much time together because of homeschooling.

I always liked the idea of homeschooling, probably because I found school really boring. We live in Detroit, and public schools here weren't an option for us. We couldn't afford any of the private schools we'd have considered. We tried a charter school, but it wasn't a fit for my DS (who is academically advanced but has the energy and attention span of the little kid he is). I also just didn't like having him in school all day, then doing homework, then having to go to bed early to be up for school the next day. It seemed like we rarely saw each other. So, we started homeschooling. Now that we're doing it, I mainly keep doing it because I like having DS home and he likes being home. I mean, I do think I can provide them with an excellent education, but when you get down to it, we do it because we like it.

Seriously. As a college instructor, I was appalled. I just cannot imagine treating a student like that under any circumstances.

I have a personal policy of never, ever, ever reading the comments on internet articles. I'd like to retain some faith in the goodness of humankind. ;)

I think most people, even if that sounded very appealing, wouldn't want to give up the opportunity to vote in their own party's primaries.

I think in November I'm going to put other language arts on hold and do it with my DS. He loves to write. I figure I'll give him a modified word count goal (maybe 10,000 or so?) and we'll write together during the littles' nap time.

I agree. I think debates are pretty much pointless. I'd much rather have them all sit around and discuss various issues, in the style of those Sunday morning political roundtables. (I'm not a Republican, and my dislike of debates extends to both parties.)

Great piece. I hope it hasn't been posted yet--I don't think I saw it--and apologize it it was. http://life.salon.com/2011/10/12/a_home_schooler_goes_to_college/ The author was unschooled, but a lot of what she talks about is what I want my more structured schooling to be like for my kids. An excerpt: I love the idea that her parents homeschooled her because they liked hanging out with her. Honestly, while that wasn't why we decided to homeschool initially, it's become the main reason that I keep doing it.

That's a lot easier, though, when your church as a SoF that can fit on a single sheet of paper than when the catechism that contains your church's teachings is over 800 pages long. I don't know, I guess I don't see why disagreement is such a big problem. (Which is ironic, given that the reason I'm an Episcopalian rather than a Catholic is that I'm still not quite sure I can in good faith return to the RCC, because of my stance on certain issues.) To me, if somebody wants to be a part of a denomination so much that they are willing to join even though they have things they disagree with it on, that just shows that they must really have strong feelings of connection to and affection for that denomination.

If it were my child, I'd say "What do you think?" I'd probably admit that we don't know for sure (because I don't think we do), and so it's something people will have different opinions on.

I don't know, that kind of strikes me like saying that the South didn't cede because of slavery. Well, yeah, there were other issues at play, but to say that it wasn't about slavery is to downplay the absolute centrality of that issue. I think to say that GLBT issues aren't the primary issue is to downplay how absolutely central they are to the churches that are leaving (churches that didn't leave earlier even though theological liberalism has been a part of the EC for a very, very long time). I'm rubbed the wrong way by the implication that the EC has supported the full inclusion of GLBT people in church life to "win a popularity contest." Certainly it's NOT a popular position for them to take as members of the Anglican Communion! For most Anglicans who support full affirmation of GLBT individuals and couples, it's a matter of love and justice, not popularity or cultural accommodation.

Not necessarily. More conservative U.S. Episcopalians and Episcopal churches often identify as Anglican in order to separate themselves from EC positions, but there are plenty of liberal Anglicans worldwide. What specifically are you looking for? Do you want a church that isn't affiliated with the Episcopal Church at all, or would you be okay with a conservative Episcopal church? There are Episcopal churches that are much more conservative in flavor: they'll often call themselves "traditional" churches and may use an older version of the BCP. They might or might not identify as Anglican, but they are still part of the EC. I attend a more liberal Episcopal Church, but we've got a large conservative parish in the city. If you want a U.S. Anglican church not affiliated with the EC, that's a bit harder. I know that some churches are affiliated with other provinces, but for all of the talk of churches leaving the EC, very few actually have.

I'm grading papers (and surfing the web to keep myself sane while I do it!) so I don't have the mental energy for a long answer, but I do want to recommend Marjorie Suchocki's In God's Presence. It is without a doubt the most thought-provoking, convincing, and powerful book on prayer I've ever read. Intercessory prayer never made any sense to me at all before I read the book. The traditional model of intercessory prayer still doesn't, but Suchocki talks about prayer from a process perspective (there's a brief introduction to process theology in the book) and it really, really made sense to and resonated with me.

Yup. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion. However, some individual churches in the United States, which disagree with the full inclusion of GLBT people in all aspects of church life in the Episcopal Church, have left the Episcopal Church and joined with other provinces that take conservative stances on certain contested issues like the role of GLBT people in the church or the ordination of women. Episcopalians are Anglicans, but most Anglicans are not part of the Episcopal Church, to put it another way.

I don't think they are polite or appropriate questions, but I would not say they are "evil" or force children into early sexual activity, at all. I do think that perhaps our culture has become so completely paranoid around issues of sex that we're interpreting what are invasive and rude but not pathological questions in the most unfavorable light imaginable. That's certainly not going to get somebody anywhere positive with the grandparents.

This is why I'm an Episcopalian. :P But, yes, I do think you can be a good member of a denomination and disagree with things. I know a lot of people I'd consider good Catholics who disagree with the RCC on certain teachings. But they remain Catholic because, for them, the RCC is, if not the church, then their church. They have a family-like relationship with it, and you don't leave your family just because, for example, you disagree over politics. A lot of times--I'd say most of the time--denominational affiliation probably has more to do with family/culture than with church teaching/doctrine.

Do they know how uncomfortable it makes you? You might assume they know, but have you explicitly told them that it makes you very uncomfortable and it's not something you are okay with? It sounds like you love them, and that your daughter loves them, and that you have a good relationship other than this issue. Personally, I'm not one to cut off contact with people, and I'd do whatever I could to preserve the relationship. Could you suggest things they could do with DD that you and your DH would be comfortable with? Could you and your DH sit down with them and you all could come up with some boundaries that everybody was comfortable with? It just sounds like there is a lot of closeness between you and your DD and your parents and, honestly, IMO more harm would be done by disrupting those relationships than by your daughter being allowed to wear make-up or immodest clothing while with her grandparents. But, clearly neither is ideal, and since it sounds like your parents are kind, loving people, I think maybe being as frank with them as possible about your concerns, no matter how awkward that might be, would work.

I think there's a few different issues at work. It's quite possible that the daughter's sudden interest in boys and makeup has little or nothing to do with the grandparents, and much to do with being 10. I'd be hesitant to blame the grandparents for the daughter's behavior. I don't have any experience with a child of my own that age, but from friends I know with older daughters, that does seem to be the age where these kinds of battles start happening. I'd be very, very, very careful about accusing the grandparents of "sexualizing" the child by asking questions about boys or dating. I remember adults--normal adults who were relatives or family friends, not weirdos--making those kinds of comments to me when I was that age. It's embarrassing for the child and I don't think it's the best line of discussion, but it's not twisted or perverted in the way that a term like "sexualizing" seems to indicate. That's just a very strong accusation to level, especially given the times we live in, and I'd definitely not use the term, and maybe try to think of what was happening in less loaded ways, just to help diffuse as much of the raw emotion from the situation as possible. I'd also want to know whether the grandparents were suggested this to the DD, or the DD was asking for it and they were hesitant to say no. That would definitely affect how I handled things. If the DD was asking for the clothes and make-up, and grandma and grandpa were just going along, I'd certainly talk to them about it, but I'd think it was primarily an issue between the parents and the child. I think a 10yo is old enough to understand that certain rules are rules no matter who she is with, and be responsible for acting accordingly. If it's the grandparents who are suggesting/pushing these things, and the DD is just going along (even if she's going along eagerly), then that would be an issue primarily with them, and I do think that talking to them about it--as calmly and respectfully as possible, without insinuating that they are somehow corrupting your child or have lower morals or anything like that--is completely appropriate. I don't know, I think that, especially if this is the kind of thing they allowed with their own daughter, it's possible that it's a matter of feeling like they are being told, through actions, that the way they parented was wrong. I know that my mom, who is wonderful, did inititally take my breastfeeding my kids as somehow a condemnation of her bottle-feeding me. And, it wasn't, at all. It was just the choice we made. It was a different choice, and while I honestly did feel like it was a better choice, I let her know that I was breastfeeding because it was what worked for our family (rather than putting it in better-worse terms). I do think that helped her both to feel less judged and to kind of back off with wanting to give the babies bottles. She was always wanting to bottlefeed my first, and I do think it was because she felt like she needed to "prove" that the way she had done things was okay. Which it was! It's just not the way we were doing things.