We've got a baby due the first week in August; I'm going back to work (just one class that meets twice a week) on August 31st. I'm thinking we'll get back to formal school around mid-September, so we'll have time to adjust to the baby and I'll have time to adjust to being back at work before we start with school.

Why sad? I mean that honestly. My parents and ILs also both always have the TV on (my parents will even have it on in the background when they are both reading). I find it irritating because I'm a person who likes quiet, but not sad. It's not like they're watching TV all day, or even much of the day; it's just on as they do other things. They just like the background noise, I think, and are used to it. They grew up, as I mentioned above, in homes where the radio was always on (and both sets of my grandparents went from having the radio on all the time to having the TV on all the time once they got TVs). It's what they're used to. I think the quiet in my house drives them crazy, because they're always turning on the TV when they come over, even if there's nothing on that anybody is watching.

I always wonder if watching means "sat there doing nothing but watching TV" or "had the TV on during that time." DH and I both grew up in homes where the TV was on all the time (both our parents grew up in homes where the radio was on all the time, and I think the TV just took the place of that for them). It drives me kind of insane, so I don't do it. But, I didn't watch that many hours of TV a day as a kid; I'd say maybe 1-2 hours a day, at most, would be spent actually sitting in front of the TV really paying attention to something. But the TV was always on. So I might have been in a room with the TV on for 6-8 hours a day, but I wasn't watching it for most of that time; I'd be playing or reading or talking to somebody or doing something else. My DS has had Mythbusters on for a while today. But he's been doing lots of other things while it's on, and hasn't been paying attention for most of it. Right now he's got it on but is making superhero costumes for himself and DD.

Love Aldi here. The only things I don't like are their grated Parmesan cheese and some of their produce. But usually we hit a fruit market or the farmer's market for our produce, then pick everything else up at Aldi.

This. I'd just chalk it up to a lesson learned and try my best not to dwell on it. It took a really long time for DS to behave even somewhat appropriately in church. He was probably 5 before every service he was at wasn't a nightmare for me. Some things that helped were really encouraging him to get into the parts of the service he could get into (singing, passing the peace, prayer of the people, etc.), having specific parts of the service where he needs to be quiet and respectful and do his best to pay attention (the readings and the communion blessing), and then letting him pay as little attention as he wants during the sermon assuming that he's not being loud. Because, the sermons are NOT aimed at children in any way, and I don't think it would be fair or right to expect him to pay attention. So, during the sermon he can color, read, draw, even sometimes play word games on my Kindle, as long as he's not distracting other people. That seems to work out well. Then, though, DD came along, and now we've got all that goes along with bringing a 1-year-old to church. So, I've been attending a different church the last couple of weeks, which I'm not as on board with theologically/politically but which a bunch of our friends go to and which has a lot more resources for families (a nursery, children's church, etc.). The kids love it, and right now I prefer being able to worship at a church that's not quite as ideal of a fit for me than having a church that's an ideal fit but that I can't enjoy the service at because I'm spending the whole time attempting to control my kids' behavior.

Not to mention, as crappy as school lunches often are, they are still a lot healthier than what some of these kids--of all sizes--are eating at home. My DS's best friend is fed horribly by his mother. (She seems to have some cognitive impairments, as does the grandmother who lives with them, so it's not something I really hold her responsible for, it's just a very sad situation.) He's average size, his sister is thin, but they eat the most awful diet. Basically, it's soda and chips when they're home. School lunches are, in their case, the healthiest food they're getting, and I'm glad it's there for them.

I agree it's totally inappropriate. Depending on the dynamics of the church, though, I'd probably be more likely to go to the girl than to the pastor (and whether I'd talk to him or not, I'd talk to her first). Because that's a really crappy, confusing situation for a teen girl to be in, especially if everybody else around her is just acting like nothing weird was happening. I'd probably just pull her aside if I could, let her know that I saw what was going on and that I didn't think it was okay, and see if there was anything I could do to help her (talking to her parents with or for her, talking to the pastor, staying near her when the pastor was likely to do it, etc.).

Is it less ridiculous when a thin baby is drinking soda out of a baby bottle? I completely agree that feeding a baby soda is absurd. But, I've seen many parents doing that when I've sat in the waiting room of my kids' ped, and none of the little ones drinking it have been very large. In fact, a lot of the time, I'll see parents giving little ones soda and Cheetos, and their LOs are a lot thinner than my DD, who I feed a reasonably healthy diet (we're not a no-junk family, so she has the occasional cookie or ice cream sandwich, but I certainly wouldn't feed her soda, and mostly she eats whole grains, lean meats, fruits, and veggies). Soda doesn't become good for a child just because the child is thin. So I think we need to separate out habits/health from weight a lot more than we do. Giving a baby soda is a bad idea whether that baby is fat or thin. And, a parent who is feeding their child a healthy diet and encouraging an active lifestyle is doing a good job, whether their kids are smaller or larger. That's a really good point. That's a huge burden on foster families. Plus, as a foster parent, that would put a person in a really difficult position. How do you deny food to a hungry child in that situation, without them feeling like you are cruel or rejecting? Who determines what diet the child should be on? How would they make sure that the diet was being followed? If the child failed to lose weight with the foster family, what then? And, what age are we talking about? I think it's unrealistic (and probably psychologically unhealthy) for a teenager to have his or her diet completely controlled by adults; at some point they will and should begin to take responsibility.

This is part of why I don't watch local news. I feel like national news isn't as bad, and international news is usually quite good. But local news, at least in my area, is just terrible story after terrible story, none of which make me any better informed about the actual issues affecting my city and state.

DS would happily stay in his PJs all day. But, just in case we end up wanting to run out, I prefer having everybody dressed, most of the time. I usually let him have a "jammie day" a few times a month. But, other than that, the deal is that if he won't get dressed, he can't go out to play if a friend comes over. So that usually entices him to get dressed.

I usually watch the CBS Evening News with DH. That's usually it. When I'm in a phase where I'm really interested in news, I'll download some BBC podcasts. They tend to focus on news that's important rather than news that's just shocking.

I'm not there yet, but I really like how gray hair looks, and have no intention of coloring my hair when I start to go gray.

We've got 4 in the family and a fifth on the way. We spend about $100 on groceries each week.

But that's the problem. You can't make a clear connection between food intake, body size, and health problems. You just can't. Many kids who eat tons of junk food are thin. Many fat kids don't end up with diabetes, high blood pressure, or any other health issue. And, there are kids with Type II diabetes, high blood pressure, and other "obesity-related" conditions who are normal weight or even underweight. So, to just say "if a parent has a fat child, they must 1) be doing something wrong and 2) not care about their child's health" is simply not true. And the converse, that if their child is thin, that parent must be feeding their child well and that child must be perfectly health isn't true, either. Of course it's emotional when people start making moral judgments about other people's parenting based on the body size of their child.

If a child has sleep apnea and diabetes, then those conditions need to be treated, and if the parent isn't treating those conditions, that's a problem. But, I don't believe that body size, no matter how extreme (at either end, overweight or underweight), is a valid reason to take a child away from his or her parents. Unless we're willing to take thin children who are fed lots of junk food away from their parents, I see no reason except for a prejudice against fat people to even consider taking fat children who are fed lots of junk food away. And, when would this begin? I mean, we're starting to move from a war on obesity to a war on childhood obesity to now a war on infant obesity. My DD was 22 lbs. at 4 months. She was the fattest baby we'd ever seen. (She's still chubby at 16 months, but she's back on the growth charts.) Under absolutely no circumstances would I have put my exclusively-breastfed 4 month old baby on a diet (which thankfully our ped never even suggested--she was totally fine with DD's size). Should she have been removed from our care and put with a family who'd be willing to limit her food intake?

I can't tell you how infuriatingly stupid I find this. The AMA should be censured for even suggesting this. AFAIK, the only study ever done on obesity rates in foster care was done in the UK. It found that kids in foster care were MORE likely to be overweight or obese than kids not in foster care, and that 35% of children in foster care demonstrate an increase in their BMI. Not to mention what we know of the devastating long-term emotional and behavior consequences of being removed from family and placed in foster care. Really, this is just like one of the worst ideas ever. One reason--and there are many--why this is so ridiculous is that, if anything, I'd say that "super obese" kids are far more likely to have genetic, metabolic, and/or medical issues contributing to their obesity than other kids. If your kid is 10 pounds overweight, I'll buy that maybe it's because that kid is eating too much and not exercising enough. If your kid is 100 pounds overweight, then I'm going to assume it's not because you are forcefeeding your child junk food all day, but because there's other factors at work that "lifestyle changes" probably won't remedy. And, what about parents who feed their kids junk food all day, but their kids are thin? Yes, kids like that do exist; I see them all the time. There are many kids here who seem to subsist on a "liquor store diet": they eat stuff their parents can pick up at the liquor store around the corner--chips, soda, candy. And, most of them are thin. Is it somehow just fine for a parent of a thin child to provide them with nothing but junk? I don't see any valid basis for removing a child from a home based not on the parents' behavior toward the child but the child's body size.

This. I think we have a tendency in our culture to see laziness as this horrible, horrible thing. And, it can be, but really I think it's just an inclination to not work hard enough, and really no different from the inclination to work too hard. Both can be destructive if not properly dealt with, but both can be dealt with. But we tend to applaud those who work too hard, and look down on people who may be less motivated. I definitely have a tendency toward laziness. Always have. I'm just not a very motivated person unless it's something that I'm really excited about or into. I've just learned ways to get things done anyway. I make lots of lists. I try to be realistic about how much I can actually do in a day (because I think many lazy people recognize that they're lazy, feel guilty about it, and assume everybody else is doing tons more than they are, and so have unrealistic ideas about how much they should be able to do) so I don't get overwhelmed and decide to just do nothing. I try to establish routines so it's not a question of whether or not I'm going to do something, since I'm just in the habit of doing it. I make time for breaks and try not to feel guilty about taking them. In my case, I think it's both just part of my personality (I tend to be a really easygoing person, which has its benefits but can also have drawbacks, like not being particularly motivated) and because, especially when I was growing up, a lot of things came pretty easy to me. I never had to work particularly hard at anything to perform as well as people expected me to perform, and so I never really developed much discipline around working hard.

It's not a double standard, at all. It would be a double standard if people were starting groups with SOFs that excluded conservative Christians. But, having a group that includes everybody is just not the same, in any way, as having a group that excludes large numbers of people, including large numbers of Christians. Whether people like others or think they are right doesn't matter. What matters is having policies that outright exclude people. I can say, "I'm not going to attend an all-white homeschool group. I'm not comfortable joining a group that excludes people of other races." Does that mean I'm the same as a person who says, "I'll only join an all-white homeschool group, because I don't want my child doing educational activities with people of other races"? If you think those two are the same, then I'm really not sure what to say. I'm not saying, in the first example, that I don't want my child around white people. I'm not saying that I think white people--or even people with racist attitudes--are dangerous and I don't want my child around them. What I'm saying is that I don't want to be part of a group that excludes others.

Last: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Current: The Ship Breaker Next: ? I've got tons of stuff out from the library and on my Kindle, but I'm not sure what I'll read next.

I'd look at Octavia Butler's Parable of the Sower and Parable of the Talents and see if they look like something you'd like. It's a somewhat similar premise, in that it centers around a young woman starting a resistance movement in a dystopian future. In case the titles are confusing, these aren't Christian novels. I can't comment on how good it is yet, because I just started it this morning, but The Ship Breaker is a YA dystopia that is getting great reviews.

No, I don't think it really goes both ways, any more than you can say that people who ran integrated restaurants and people who ran whites-only restaurants were doing the exact same thing. One was including everybody, one wasn't. I wouldn't join a homeschool group with a SOF because I wouldn't want to be in a group that excluded people based on their religious beliefs. I'm sure many of the people in exclusive groups are perfectly pleasant, nice people who I'd get along with. I still wouldn't want to join a group that would exclude people on the basis of religion.

I tell my DS not to splash because I know it really, really bothers some adults and I want to be respectful of them and teach him to be respectful. I think those adults are big old party-poopers, though. I generally don't like getting splashed, but I figure that if I'm near the pool, it's going to happen. However, now that I'm due in less than a month and insanely hot all the time, all of DS's friends know that if they want to splash somebody (or squirt their water guns at somebody, or throw water balloons at somebody), it is open season on me, with my blessing. ;)

I was kind of hoping you were going to see if there were any planets we could ship preschoolers off to. ;)

Just want to add that, before we start saying that this is evidence of the decline of educational standards and civilization as we know it (not that you were going there ;)), the essay portion was only added in 2005.

Unless we see some really significant, systematic changes, the rich are going to keep getting richer, and the poor will keep getting poor, and the gap between the two will keep growing, as it has since Reagan. And so it goes.