My DS is a big juice fan. He likes all kinds of juice, including things I can't stand like regular V8 (I do like the V8 fruit blends, though). He doesn't complain if we don't have it, but I usually buy a bottle of some kind of juice he likes while grocery shopping. Unless I feel like he's really being absurd with how much he's asking for, I don't restrict; if he wants a cup, he can have one. But when the bottle is done, he's not getting another until I go shopping again. I can't say he's ever chosen to drink more than maybe 2-3 small cups of juice a day, and that's at most. Most days he might ask for one. DD rarely drinks juice, but I'll give her 50/50 juice/water once in a while (like maybe twice a month).

I'm not sure how much is related to intelligence/giftedness or not, but I do think that people, including children, vary wildly in how much sleep they need. My DS has never been a sleeper. From the time he was born, he had an incredibly difficult time falling asleep--for years and years he had to be touching me to sleep, and even now, at 7, he is much happier falling asleep snuggled up next to me than alone--and has never seemed to need (or at least been able/willing to get) as many hours of sleep as most kids his age. He dropped naps entirely by the time he was 18 months, because we found that he'd nap for an hour, and then be up 3-4 hours later at night. His sleep issues are a big part of the reason why our first two kids are six years apart. He very nearly did DH and I in. My DD has been a good sleeper from birth. She would routinely sleep for 5-6 hour blocks even as a newborn. She was sleeping through the night in a crib on a consistent basis by 6 months (she actually can't sleep well if she's next to me or DH, and prefers sleeping alone). At 15 months she's just now transitioning from two naps to one, and still takes two naps some days. I'd say she gets about 13-14 hours of sleep a day, compared to the maybe 9-10 hours (if that) my son was getting at her age. One issue my DS has is with not being able to shut down at night. He just wants to keep talking and talking and asking questions. Usually what I do is give him a chance to tell me or ask me 3 things, and then he has to be quiet for the night. He's also allowed to come out of his room, after we tuck him in, one time for a non-emergency, but after that, there are consequences. Both of those things seem to help a bit.

Certainly, though, there would be profound legal ramifications to defining embryos and fetuses as legal persons. Legal persons are accounted for by the government; should every pregnancy have to be registered with the state? Certificates issued at conception, not birth? If a woman then has a miscarriage, should that miscarriage be investigated the way that the death of a born person would be, to ensure that she did nothing to cause or contribute to it? It's just not as simple as saying that a fetus is a legal person. Again, I don't like abortion. I think it's morally wrong. I would like to see a cultural shift in attitudes so that far fewer people chose them, and more support in place to help women successfully continue pregnancies they think they can't continue. But, I think laws outlawing abortion are counterproductive to the end of preserving life (because they do not reduce the abortion rate but do put the lives of women in danger), and are also a violation of our most basic right to bodily integrity. Plus, they're basically unenforceable, and cannot and have never been fairly or evenly enforced, and I don't like laws that are unenforced or enforced only on the most vulnerable in society.

Any evidence for this? I know of no cases, anywhere, where it is legal to kill an adult against his or her will simply because the caregiver wants to; the only cases where it is legal is when a person is either brain dead or has expressed his or her desire to not be kept alive under certain conditions. What we aren't required to do, though, is donate any part of our body to keep an elderly relative alive, even if not doing so will certainly mean their death. There are no instances, other than laws against abortion, where one human being is required to give any part of their body to sustain the life of another person against their will, with no choice in the matter. Do I think people should choose abortion? No. But, I do not think there are valid legal grounds (or practical reason) for banning it, and I think there are many valid arguments as to why it should be legal.

The Hot Wheels situation was actually quite funny. DS was like a clown car with those things. We'd think we emptied his pockets, and he'd beep again, and we'd find another car in another pocket. I think it must have taken 3 or 4 tries to get all the cars. Thankfully the other people on line had patience and a sense of humor, and everybody was laughing about it.

If it turned out that our laws against murder 1) did nothing to reduce the murder rate and 2) made it far, far more likely that the person attempting/perpetrating the murder was going to wind up dead (two deaths, rather than one), and 3) allowed the wealthy to get away with murder as often as they wanted while the poor and vulnerable were the ones who were dying, I'd honestly believe that it might indeed be time to rethink our laws against murder and whether or not they were actually helping anything. And, certainly laws against abortion are significantly different than laws against murder. Women with more resources have always been able to obtain safe, clandestine abortions, either by travelling to a place where they are legal or finding a "respectable" doctor who was willing to perform a D&C for "medical reasons." It's women with fewer resources who are forced into back alley clinics or self-induced abortions, and end up dead or permanently injured. Laws against abortion disproportionately affect the women who are already the most vulnerable. When there are effective ways to reduce the abortion rate that do not disproportionately harm poor women (and in fact help them), and when laws against abortion do little or nothing to reduce the abortion rate, if the real concern is preserving life, then I think we need to stop thinking legislatively and instead focusing on reducing need and providing alternatives.

Probably because they don't want to be associated with "those" Christians. I do the same thing. If I'm asked if I'm Christian, I'd probably say, "I'm Episcopalian," just so it was clear to the person asking that, no, I don't think they're going to hell, no, I don't hate gay people, and, no, I don't vote Republican. ;) The idea isn't that I'm saying I'm not Christian, but just trying to clarify things.

My DS started reading the books around the time he turned 7. I feel like books 1-4 or so are appropriate, but not the later ones. I figured he'd get bored around that time on his own, and I was right. He got about a third of the way through the fourth book and decided it got boring. I figure, when he's older, he'll probably given the series a try again.

Not to mention that, in many circumstances, it wouldn't work. When abortion is illegal, women have illegal abortions. Statistics seem to indicate that legality has little or no impact on abortion rates. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html If the choices are women having unsanitary, back-alley abortions (or self-induced abortions) and women having legal, regulated abortions, I'd much prefer them to have legal, regulated ones. Those seem to be the choices.

I'm a Christian, but we're basically secular homeschoolers; there are very few Christian homeschooling materials out there that fit our worldview, theology, or needs. We do use some materials from Christian publishers if they work for us (we use CLE for math and R&S for English). I specifically look for secular history and science materials.

It's not new, and a bit difficult and/or rambling at times, but one of my all-time favorite non-fiction books is Susan Griffin's A Chorus of Stones.

I don't get the Justin Bieber thing, either. I think the issue with a child having a FB page is that it's against the terms of service for somebody under 13 to have an account, whether it's monitored by the parents or not. At least I think so.

I've never really thought about it, but I guess I have the same view on both: I don't personally think it's right, I wouldn't personally do it, but I do think people with different convictions should have the legal right to act in accord with their own conscience. I'd like to see neither happen (or at least only happen in rare, necessary circumstances), but I'd prefer to see that shift come as a cultural change rather than by a legislative fiat (which I don't think would work, anyway). I do not support outlawing either.

My DS always wants to post stuff on Facebook. We live about 600 miles away from our closest family (others are father away), so it's the primary way we exchange pictures, videos, and small pieces of news. DS loves to have me post videos of him and DD and then see what his grandparents and aunt and great-aunts and great-uncles have to say in response. But, I wouldn't let him have his own account until he was 14, or whatever age FB allows you to make an account.

My son got the Snap Circuits Green Alternative Energy Kit for his 7th birthday last month and loved it. He used his birthday money to get the Hexbug Nano Habitat set, and that's been a huge hit with him.

I'd say it means they are "gifted" when it comes to reading, or maybe to language issues in general, but that doesn't mean they are gifted in other areas. My son is an accelerated reader, and just generally picks up anything having to do with language (grammar, spelling, etc.) very quickly. He's much closer to grade level in math. I wouldn't say he's globally gifted, but he seems to have a natural facility with language.

I flew in the fall, AND I'd lost my driver's license on the trip, so I had to go through security without proper ID. Even with that, it wasn't a huge hassle. The things to remember with kids are that 1) they need to take their shoes off (so it's probably a good idea to have them in shoes that they or you can get on and off easily) and their jackets if they have jackets on, 2) if you have a stroller, it needs to be folded up and send through the scanner (so if you have somebody too little to walk, you'll have to either have somebody else hold them while you fold up the stroller and put it on the belt, or figure out how to do that while holding the baby), and 3) if they have pockets secretly stuffed with Hot Wheels cars, they will keep setting off the security buzzer until you manage to find every single one. Ask me how I know that one. ;)

It really would depend on what time of day you came over. We don't get to "Hoarders" levels, but if you came over in the middle of the day, there's a good chance there'd be toys all over the floor, books and projects all over the surfaces, and dishes in the sink. If you came over in the morning or evening, though, the house would be pretty neat. I try to clean up every night so I wake up to a clean house, and I'll do a quick midday pick-up, but I'm not super concerned about making sure the house is neat throughout the day, because that is just a losing battle and ends up with me frustrated and irritated.

Well, mine will probably make you feel better about yourself. ;) Although, in my defense, I'm 32 weeks pregnant. Lately, I haven't been sleeping well at night, so I get up around 7:30 or 8:00 (I'm a morning person, and I MUCH prefer to get up earlier so I can have time to myself before the kids are awake). DS usually gets up around the time I do, and DD gets up around 6:30 or 7:00 and DH watches her until I get up. Then, from about 8-9, we eat breakfast, DH gets ready for and leaves for work, and the kids and I get dressed. We'll probably hang out until maybe 9:30, and then from 9:30-11:00 I do school with DS and DD plays. DD is ready for a nap at 11, and so she goes down, and then I take a rest and read while she naps. That's DS's computer/video game time. We're usually up around 12:30, and we eat lunch. Around 1, if it's a nice day, we'll go outside for a while, and play in the yard or take a walk. Around 2 or 3 we usually have friends who are outside playing, so we might go over to somebody's house for a visit, or DS will have a friend over. If it's not a good day to go outside, we'll just hang out here, the kids will play with toys, and I'll knit or read or try to get chores done. I try to get us home and visitors out by 4:30. At that point DS will watch TV and I'll straighten up and get dinner ready. DH gets home around 5:30, and we eat then. Then we all just hang out and do whatever cleaning needs to get done until it's time to get ready for bed. DD starts getting ready for bed at 7, and is usually in her crib by 7:15 or 7:30. Then we might play a game with DS, or watch a movie, or read for a while. Around 8:30 it's time for DS to get his jammies on and get into bed to read, and I usually join him. He falls asleep in our bed so he won't disturb his sister (they share a room), and then DH carries him into his own bed once he's ready for bed (which is usually around 11). DS and I usually end up reading until 9:30 or so, and then it's lights out. If things go well, I'm able to fall asleep by 10 and can wake up earlier and exercise, but lately I toss and turn or end up getting up to watch TV until about 1 or 2 a.m., at which point I can finally get to sleep. Every day isn't like that, but it's pretty typical.

I watched this when I was at my parents' house last summer, and I really liked it. I thought the families were going to be, I don't know, harsher than they were; I know a few families I'd consider a lot stricter than the ones on the show! I thought the families on the show were a nice combination of stern and compassionate, at least on the episodes I saw.

I plan our schedule (what pages/chapters/projects we're going to do when), but I don't plan out the lessons (what we'll be doing, specifically, during each lesson). At this point, I don't think it's necessary, and most of the stuff we use is straightforward and provides the structure. Plus, since it's just the two of us working, I'm able to assess what we might need to cover in more depth and what we can move through quickly, or what we should spend more time on because it really interests him, and that seems like a better use of our time. I do lesson plan for the writing classes I teach, though. When I make up plans, I generally come up with 1-3 objectives for that class session, and then come up with some introductory/lecture material, and then some combination of large-group discussion questions, small group activities, and individual writing exercises. I don't do anything nearly that structured for homeschooling, because it just doesn't seem necessary, at least at this point.

How old are her kids? I just ask because I know that my house was A LOT cleaner when I just had one five-year-old than it was once DD came along, and it's been much cleaner the last few months, when she's needed less constant attention, than it was when she was younger. I'm assuming that once this new baby comes, and I've got two under two, it's going to be a while before my home is kept up exactly the way I'd like. I can manage to keep up with basic upkeep most days--doing laundry, making beds, doing dishes, wiping stuff down, sweeping up under tables. But, it's difficult to get the bigger, more time-consuming tasks done when you've got babies or toddlers around. I cleaned out my entire fridge the other day--emptied it out, scrubbed down the inside (including getting the corners all clean), cleaned the outside--and it was a huge pain, because DD woke up from her nap halfway through, I had a bunch of food still out and a half-clean fridge, and had to divide my attention between finishing up the job and taking care of her. I think I spend about an hour and a half total just working on the fridge. That's the kind of thing that often falls to the side for me when the kids are smaller. And, I'm okay with that. My house, right now, is going to have dust under the beds and some dirt in the corners and a tub that doesn't get scrubbed down as often as I might like. But, as long as the daily maintenance stuff is kept up, I just accept that other stuff will be in less-than-ideal condition and once the kids are all a bit older and more independent it will be easier to get things done.

My son NEVER liked reading aloud. I'll make him read a sentence or two aloud to me while we're going over stuff for school--he's the type to skip over directions and jump right into the work, so I usually make him read instructions aloud to me, for example. And he'll occasionally want to read something aloud to me if he thinks it's really interesting or funny. But, for the most part, I don't make him read aloud, although I do sometimes tell him to go read a book to his sister, which he'll do. Maybe some of the early Magic Tree House books?

It's all a matter of perspective. Laws against, say, smoking in restaurants means that smokers lose a freedom, but other patrons and restaurant workers gain the freedom to eat and work in an environment with healthy air.

Freedom from, not freedom to. I guess they rate freedom from taxes on cigarettes as more important than freedom to have your child receive a quality education even if you don't have the resources to afford private school or homeschool.