Nobody's ever asked me, but my kids are all little clones of each other, so it would be very strange if they did. I don't think I'd be offended, but I'd wonder why they were asking.

I really don't care. As long as they are respectful and polite, they can call me whatever they want. I usually just go by whatever the parent prefers with younger kids. So I'm Miss Lori to some of my friends' kids, Mrs. E to others, and just Lori to others. With older kids, I usually just introduce myself as Lori, and let them figure out what to call me. They usually end up either calling me Lori or Miss Lori. Or, actually, the most popular among all ages seems to be "Thomas's mom" or just "Thomas mom." I think they generally don't remember my name. ;) With my kids, I just have them call other adults whatever that adult has introduced themselves as (or, if I know what those adults have their kids call me, I have my kids use the same form). When in doubt, I go with Miss/Mr. First Name. I figure if they want to correct me or my kids, they can, but they probably won't be profoundly offended with that.

I'm not sure I'd trust assessments of "bias" by somebody who is pushing a conservative agenda. I also really question the methodology used, because it seems designed to get the results they wanted. I think the mainstream corporate media is, in general, decidedly conservative on economic and foreign policy issues and somewhat liberal when it comes to social issues.

I keep seeing people saying that she went on the show for help. But, from watching the clip, it's unclear whether she went on for help for herself--like, she admitted she was wrong to do what she did and wanted better techniques--or if she went on for help to change her son's behavior--like, she didn't really think what she was doing was wrong, just ineffective, and wanted Dr. Phil to tell her how to get her son in line. To me, that would make a difference in how the tape should have been viewed by the courts.

DS nursed until he was 26 months. I remember, right before he turned two, calling my mom and crying because I felt like he was NEVER going to wean. He had no interested in cups, he wanted to nurse all the time, and I was feeling really resentful. Then, like a month later, he just really dropped off how much he nursed. After a couple of weeks, he was down to just his morning nurse. I started offering him a sippy in the morning, and without any battles, he took it. I could not believe he weaned so easily, given how often he was nursing just a little earlier. I weaned DD when she was 10 months. I was pregnant, my supply was really low, and it was extremely painful to nurse. And, she wasn't very happy. I'd been supplementing with formula for a few weeks, because I hadn't been able to make enough milk at that point to satisfy her, and she loved her bottles. She was weaned in about three days without any fussing or complaint. But, she was an all-business nurser from birth, so as long as she was getting her food, she was happy, and as soon as she'd had enough, she was done. She was a finger-sucker rather than a comfort-nurser.

I guess I'm coming to this from the perspective of an urban person who grew up in a suburb (which I think would probably be the worst option for where to be). We've got lots of open land and a growing culture of urban agriculture here (we have several small farms within a few miles of our home, which is just blocks from downtown), so I wouldn't be too concerned about food, because people could make do and there's enough people here with the knowledge of how to do so.

Maybe this is an incredibly stupid question, but why does living in a remote area in case of a disaster seem like the best option? I live in a city, and I feel like we'd be in good shape here should there be some sort of large-scale disaster. There's a lot of people here, so there'd be a lot of hands to get on with rebuilding. There'd be access to things we might need, and people around with knowledge we might need. I don't know, in case of a serious, worst-case-scenario disaster, I'd probably want to be where the people are, to help and be helped, than to go away from there.

:iagree: I'm personally not aware of any natural or man-made disasters that have occurred where people who have stockpiled tons of weaponry and canned food have ended up just fine while those who didn't had their daughters dragged off and ended up dead. I tend to think that, in the case of a really serious disaster, if it turned into an every-person-for-him-or-herself scenario, we're all screwed. Your ammo and canned foods might keep you alive an extra few weeks or months--maybe--but in the end it's over for everybody. The only way we'd survive is if people came together to help each other and were willing to trust each other, pool resources, and rebuild community. I keep seeing the Depression used as an example, but I don't know anybody who talks about how they got through the Depression by shooting neighbors who came by looking for food. Everybody I know who lived through the Depression talks about how people came together and helped each other. If you needed something, and somebody else had enough to spare, they shared. When you had enough to spare, you shared. That's how we survive disasters, not by taking a "looking out for me and mine" mentality. Which is to say, I think stockpiling canned goods is fine, but not with the mindset that you'd be shooting anybody who came by looking for food.

My original plan, with this baby, was to do school right until the end of the pregnancy, and then take off about two months after. So, basically, we'd school through July, and then take off August and September. That did not work out AT ALL. I was so cranky and uncomfortable at the end of the pregnancy--and the fact that it was such a hot summer didn't help--that we stopped at the end of June and took all of July off. But, I ended up feeling much better after the baby than I thought I would. I thought I'd need 6-8 weeks off. The baby was 3 weeks old on Sunday, and we started school yesterday. I felt ready and eager to get back to a routine and start doing school much earlier than I expected. And I think DS really needed that structure and that time with me. He's had a lot of changes in the last couple of years--going from being an only child for almost 6 years to having two siblings within 16 months of each other--and I think returning him to a recognizable routine as soon as possible was good for him. And, at this point, the baby still sleeps for long stretches during the day and is happy just to be either held or sitting in a seat near us when he's up, so he's no problem with school. It's my 17mo DD who makes things difficult.

This is why I spanked, as well. When my son was younger, I felt like, if I didn't punish every act of defiance or destructiveness or acting out, he would just keep doing those things the rest of his life. If I'd sat down to think about it, I'd probably realize that, at 15, he wouldn't be pushing a friend over if they wouldn't share a toy. But, at the time, it really seemed like that would be the case, and that he'd be going around biting people, throwing tantrums, and acting like a preschooler the rest of his life unless I got him in line. Basically, I overestimated my own importance in the whole process, and underestimated how important time and growth are. There are things that DS did that we were really concerned about a year ago, that he just doesn't do any more. And it's not because we spanked it out of him, or disciplined it out of him, or even positive reinforced it out of him, but just because he'd older and he grew out of it. I like what Joanne has said about much of what we do, discipline-wise, basically just being things we do until our child outgrows a given behavior. I think that's largely true. That's not to say parents play no role in shaping behavior, but I think we probably play a far smaller role than we often believe.

I don't think it's really for us to judge another person's emotional responses. For me, spanking was VERY emotional. I don't think I ever spanked DS without crying afterwards and feeling terribly, terribly guilty. I had very strong convictions that spanking was wrong, and I was going against them. It was extremely emotional for me, in a very negative way. Did spanking have a negative effect on my child? I don't know. I hope not. But, it certainly had a very negative effect on me, on how I felt about myself as a parent, and on how I felt about my relationship with my DS.

I said other. If it's an issue of child safety or public safety or elder safety, then yes. But, I don't think they should get involved if it's simply an aesthetic issue and there are no safety concerns. I don't think that would be the case with serious cases of hoarding very often, though, since it seems like public safety concerns pretty much invariably come up at a certain point.

And, it's not true there was less crime in the past. There were huge amounts of crime around the turn of the century, much of it perpetrated by teen boys. Crime rates in the 20th century seemed to peak in the 1980s, and have declined since then. Do we think that rates of spanking were lower in the 1980s than they were in the 1990s? If spanking is what determines the crime rate, then it's hard to conclude otherwise, but certainly research wouldn't bear that out.

I think it's kind of pointless to make comparisons between now and "the good old days," because most people wildly underestimate how many parents today spank (I bet many people who spank would say that they are in the minority, but over 90% of parents in the U.S. report spanking) and probably overestimate how much corporal punishment took place in the past. My father's parents used a lot of physical discipline; my mother's parents used it so rarely that the one or two occasions she or her siblings were spanked are very memorable to her. I'm guessing that if you really looked at it, rates of corporal punishment within the home were not all that different than they are now.

I'm not sure if it would be an excused absence, since it wasn't for a religious holiday. Schools seem really strict about what they'll accept as an excused absence. But the note sounds good. :)

I intended to wait until mid-September to start. We only started this week because DS was driving me so crazy that I was going to lose it if he didn't have more structured things to do during the day.

I'm starting it with my second grader this year. I plan on taking two years to get through it, but hope it will provide a good but doable challenge for him this year.

Drive far for activities. Or, drive much at all, really. I'll take him to nearby places in the city, but I'm not driving into the suburbs. I'm also not driving him places every day. I don't like driving much. We have one car, so my driving during a weekday means dropping DH off at work then picking him up. We also have a three-week-old baby and a toddler, along with my DS, who I have to get into the car when we go anywhere. It's such a hassle that I'm just not willing to do it. Thankfully we've got lots of stuff in walking distance.

Plus, I imagine that many of the homeschooling families who are very insular wouldn't send their children to public school. They'd use private religious schools where their children wouldn't be around anybody who held different beliefs anyway (which obviously isn't the case with all private religious schools, but they'd probably choose the ones that were like that).

I don't think public schools are particularly diverse. Often districts are zoned in such a way that students are only going to school with others of their same socioeconomic status. And, many neighborhoods are very racially segregated, as well. So, it's not unusual for a student in public school to attend school with people of their same race, class, and religious background. I mean, let's look at how people respond when the issue of bussing is brought up. Obviously making sure their children are only educated with students from similar backgrounds is important to many ps parents. That said, if I felt that homeschooling would mean my kids were only around people who looked and thought and lived the same as us, I wouldn't do it. But we live in a large city, and that's just not an issue.

Nope, but I don't wear make-up. I do try to make sure I've showered before DH comes home, though.

Never use it, but it doesn't bother me.

I would absolutely NOT contact her parents. She's an adult. Honestly, I think it would be insulting, infantilizing, and wrong to go to her parents. She was your employee, and I can't imagine a situation where an employer would be justified in contacting the parents of an adult employee about their performance at work. That said, I think you'd be completely justified in never using her again, and in letting her know why if you feel like that is something you want or need to do. In this case, I'd mainly be annoyed that she didn't tell me. If it was a sitter I liked and trusted, and she said, "Oh, and my boyfriend stopped by for a bit," I wouldn't be super happy about it, but I wouldn't necessarily think it was a huge problem. I'd just let her know that either I'd prefer he didn't come over or that I'd want to meet him first, whichever was the case. But, I wouldn't be pleased that she didn't tell me and I had to find out from my child.

When I was 19 or 20, I was supposed to go to an Ani DiFranco show with a friend, and my friend couldn't make it at the last minute. My mom agreed to go with me instead. It was so much fun! I actually really liked going to concerts with my mom, and also have fond memories of the times we did.

See, I'm not willing to say that I gained little from the "fluff" reading I did as a kid. I gained a love of reading. And I gained the ability to read really fast. ;) I probably also learned something about plot and character and the things that make up a story, given how formulaic the early books I read were, which may have made it easier for me to examine those things in more serious, complex literature. My parents never guided my reading, or censored it. When I was in elementary school, I mostly read Babysitters Club/Sweet Valley Twins type books. When I was in middle school, I read Sweet Valley High, Christoper Pike, and, when I was a bit older, Stephen King, V.C. Andrews, and books like that. (I do remember reading Little Women in elementary school, and a bunch of Judy Blume and Beverly Cleary books, and reading Gone with the Wind--I have no idea why--in middle school.) But by the time I was headed for high school, I was interested on my own in reading more "classic" literature. In fact, I remember that over the vacation we took the summer before I started high school, I read The Awakening, Orlando, and Ethan Frome (as well as Katherine Dunn's Geek Love, which isn't a classic, and is pretty darn horrifying for a rising ninth-grader to be reading in hindsight, but I did enjoy it and I wouldn't call it "twaddle"). I must have been on a women's lit kick. But if I hadn't already loved reading and read a lot, I really don't think I would have ever picked up a classic for fun. Most of my friends who, as adults, are avid readers, read a lot of "twaddle" as kids. They read cheesy series books and comics and romance novels or pulpy sci-fi. But I find that books lead you to other books--especially as you get older and more books reference other books (if you look at the amount of classic literature referenced in today's YA literature, there's a ton of it)--and very few people will never move beyond Sweet Valley High. But, Sweet Valley High might be exactly what gets somebody into reading in the first place. I just know very few adults who were raised on and continue to read a steady diet of classics. Most passionate readers I know still, as adults, read a good amount of "fluff" along with the serious stuff they read. So I'm not convinced, at all, that there isn't value simply in reading for reading's sake, regardless of the quality of the literature. I know that, when I left grad school (where I studied English lit for four years), I didn't read a single book for a year. I couldn't. I was so burned out on serious literature and literary analysis. Then, for about a year after that, all I read was young adult literature, because that was pretty much all I could handle without having grad-school flashbacks and feeling like I had to be on the lookout for brilliant insights I could share. Then, eventually, I was able to read "real" literature again. But that experience did make me think that too much emphasis on "real" or "serious" literature can impede a love of reading.