My CCD class was kind of a joke. It was basically health class (don't do drugs, don't drink and drive, etc.) plus a tiny bit of Catholic teaching. My DH's CCD class was really, really old-school and conservative (basically a list of what you don't want to do unless you want to go to hell). Perhaps surprisingly ;), neither of us is currently Catholic. I've been an Episcopalian since my early 20s and DH is agnostic. I would be thrilled, though, if my kids has a lesson like that in RE. What an awesome experience and what a great nun.

I love love love Knitpicks yarns. Their higher-end yarns, IMO, are just as good as comparable (same fiber mix) but more expensive yarns. Their "workhorse" yarns are good, although not always quite as good as the alternatives. I love Wool of the Andes and use it quite a bit, but I'd say it's slightly lower quality (more pilling, not as soft) as Cascade 220. Merino Style is definitely more pilly than other 100% merino yarns I've used. I still think, for the price, they're worth using, because the difference in quality isn't that great, but I'd probably take Cascade 220 on sale over WotA. But, again, their other yarns are, IMO, fabulous. Comfy is probably the nicest acrylic blend I've ever used. Their organic cotton yarns are wonderful and softer than other organic cottons I've used. I'm really sad they don't make Main Line any more, because that's probably my all-time favorite yarn. It was a cotton/wool blend that was just unbelievably fabulous, especially for the price. Luckily I managed to get a whole bunch stashed away before they did away with it. ;) So definitely a fan of KP. I also love their interchangeable needles, which are all I knit with at this point.

Just speaking as somebody who remembers middle school, I think it's likely that, no matter what schooling choice you made, your child would complain. If they were in public school, they'd complain every morning about getting up and having to go, and then about the homework they had to do, and about their teachers, etc.

I also see very little of this. I do see some of the preteen girls in my neighborhood wearing shirts with slogans I find very problematic. Once in a rare while, I'll see somebody walking around with their pants down and their underwear showing. But, beyond that, I just don't see a whole lot of this sort of thing, and I live in a very urban area. Maybe I don't notice. I don't know. I also hear very little profanity. The few times it's happened, it's been quite memorable, like one time years ago when I was at a playground and three or four teens were swearing so much I had to ask them to stop since there were small children around. But that's literally the only time I've encountered anything like that from a group of teens, and the other incidents of hearing profanity in public have generally been from homeless people who were obviously mentally ill. Being online always makes me realize that I must either be a very oblivious or a very fortunate person, because all sorts of bad behavior that people seem to see all around them, I just don't find myself surrounded by at all, even living in a city.

Looking at your kids ages, I'm not surprised! My DD (14 months) has been a naturally good sleeper since she's been born, so she's just no trouble. And I cannot credit anything DH and I did, because we treated her pretty similarly to our DS, who was a horrible, horrible sleeper until he was about 5 or 6. Bedtime with DD is so easy. We get her in PJs, give her some milk, read a short book, sing a short song, and lay her down. She's out within 10 minutes most nights, and on the nights she isn't she generally just plays with the stuffed bear in her crib pretty quietly until she's ready to sleep. DS--he is a whole different story. He was probably almost 3 before he'd consistently sleep through the night. It's just been the last few months (he turned 7 in May) that he'll consistently sleep through the night in his own bed. We used to have to spend HOURS getting him to sleep, because if we left his room before he was asleep, he'd get completely and totally hysterical (to the point where he'd just wake himself up more) but he'd fight sleep so much. It was rough. When he learned to read that made it a bit better, because he was willing to lay quietly in bed reading a book until he was sleepy. But that was really the only thing that helped. Now we generally have a routine that DS can come into the big bed with me and we read together from about 8-9 (it's his "Mommy-Thomas snuggle time," and he doesn't like to miss it), and then at 9 he goes into his bed and goes to sleep. I'd say that, at this point, he'll stay in his own bed about 90% of the time, and the other nights he'll wake up between 4 and 6 and climb in with DH and I. I don't really mind.

This. Spending money for healthy foods, sure. Spending the extra for organics, I'm just not convinced there's a pressing reason to do so.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "massively profitable," not "politically correct." I don't listen to much pop music, but from what I've heard, it's pretty vulgar and disgusting. But, it has nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything to do with the market. If there wasn't a market for it, if people weren't making tons of money off of it, they'd stop producing it. If people weren't buying vulgar shirts and bumperstickers, nobody would be selling them. I'm always shocked at the slogans on shirts worn by preteen girls, but obviously there is a market for those items, and that's why they're being made. If they were languishing in stores unsold, they'd stop being made really quickly.

Most parents support sex education in school. So "the few" are the parents who do not want their child receiving sex education in school. I do think why the few parents who don't want their children receiving sex ed should get to dictate the curriculum for everybody is a valid question, though. ;)

My DH is very interested in being involved. Honestly, he'd probably do a lot more if I weren't kind of a control freak about homeschooling and didn't want to get all of the boxes I've made checked off within a certain amount of time. Once in a while I'll leave a science experiment I really don't feel like doing for DH and DS to do after dinner, and they both really enjoy it. DH will be taking over for a month or so after I have the baby, and he's excited. When I teach, I'm out two mornings a week, and usually DH tries to do some school with DS then. He leaves language arts and history entirely to me, but he does science, some basic computer programming stuff, and sometimes math with DS if he can manage. Before DD was born they would do school together pretty consistently when I was out, and DS loved "daddy school" a lot more than "mommy school." But once DD was born, DH found it a lot harder to get school done (he's not quite as comfortable with multitasking as I am), so usually they'd just all hang out in the mornings and I'd do school in the afternoon those days. I really should leave science for DH and DS to do when DH gets home from work, though. They both enjoy it, and I really don't like doing science experiments.

This. I could care less if a boy wants to have long hair and wear skirts, and their family lets them. Go right ahead; I think it's probably a lot healthier for a child to be allowed to do those things than to want to but be told "Nope, because boys don't do that." To me, that would lead to all sorts of gender confusion, because they are boys but they also want to do those things. I have no problem with transgressing traditional gender boundaries. This is different. This is just doing something really bizarre, secretive, and isolating.

I wouldn't push at all, at 4. My DS went to a preschool that started them doing printing at 2; I really, really wish that he hadn't been taught to print that early, because I've spent the last 2-1/2 years trying to break him of really terrible handwriting habits he picked up from 2-4 in preschool. He was not developmentally ready to begin writing, he had no interest in writing on his own at that age, and I think handwriting would be much easier for him if he'd started when he was ready, rather than starting so young and then basically needing to unlearn/relearn how to write. We still have a reading/handwriting gap right now. DS is easily reading on a 5th grade level, but I doubt he's even on grade level (2nd grade) for handwriting.

Very little. Our branch library doesn't actually have much--it's got a decent selection of fiction for kids, but lacking in everything else, since it's primarily a special services library that houses the Bookmobile and the resources for the blind and visually impaired--but we can request books online and pick them up there. Between the main library and other branches, we can find almost anything we want, and our branch library is only about 3 blocks away, so it's a five minute walk to pick things up.

My church has very few kids, so no VBS. But, DS has attended VBS at a larger Episcopal church near the campus where DH works for the last few years, and he loves it. This year it will really depend on if DH doesn't mind dropping him off and picking him up (which I don't think he will, since it's right across the street from DH's building). It's usually in late July or early August, at which point I'll either be just about to deliver or have a newborn, and I don't think I'll be up to getting him over there in the morning.

What kind of academic job is it? What department is it in?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he could be working at a higher level in both math and language arts. But, while he's great at mental math, he's not all that solid on his math facts, so I wanted to make sure he had a really solid grounding in that before we moved on, so that I wouldn't have to do remedial work later. It's definitely meaning that he's doing work less challenging than he could be doing, though. If I do want to up the time, though, I think we could easily get through two CLE lessons per day. (He isn't a huge fan of Math Mammoth, although he will tolerate it, so I probably wouldn't want to up the amount of that we're doing.) The LA issue has mainly been balancing his skill level with his handwriting ability. I think he could easily be working at a 3rd or even 4th grade level with R&S, writing, and spelling, but he is still definitely at a 2nd or even 1st grade level with his handwriting, and that's kind of the limiting factor. I'm seeing him make slow but steady progress with his handwriting lately, but my concern is that upping the level he's working at would also up the amount of handwriting required, and that he'd get frustrated and overwhelmed at that part of it. Again, though, we could get through two R&S lessons and probably manage both a narration and a copywork exercise from WWE 1 each day without much problem, which is an option I hadn't considered. I don't think that would increase the handwriting to a level that would frustrate him, but it would probably put us in a position to move into more challenging work for him in four or five months when, if he continues to make good progress, he should be able to handle more writing.

Gay students, though, are also targeted, over and over, in many school districts. I think it would be difficult to argue that Christian students face more bullying and harassment, with the complicity of teachers and administrators, than gay students.

I have an embarrassing amount of yarn. I accumulated a ton in my first couple of years of knitting, and am still working through it. I keep two clear Rubbermaid containers in the basement, full of yarn. It's not super-accessible, but at least I can see what's in there. Then I got one of these from Ikea, and have it hanging in our bedroom closet (we've got plenty of space in there). I keep yarn I'm planning on using in the foreseeable future in there, so it's easily accessible.

You obviously don't live in a poor, inner city area where many people don't have cars. Again, the issue isn't whether it's difficult, but whether it's absolutely necessary. And, despite people's anecdotal experiences, actual investigations have yielded no evidence of anything approaching significant voter fraud, particularly at the individual level.

You know, I hadn't considered that, but DS being the only kid I'm schooling right now is probably part of why we finish so quickly. I'm sitting next to him the entire time, and he has my pretty-much-undivided attention (unless DD needs something), and there isn't a sibling sitting there to distract him.

I wouldn't consider that evidence, no. I've seen absolutely no evidence or even accusations of European citizens using absentee ballots to vote in U.S. Presidential elections.

But what is the purpose? Anything we do that puts up any sort of barrier to people voting needs to have a really, really strong rationale. If it's been shown again and again that voter fraud is neither widespread nor happening at the individual level in most of the isolated cases in which it does happen, what purpose does requiring ID serve? And what would be the effect? If the effect would be discouraging voting among certain populations who one political party has a vested interest in keeping from the polls--young people, poor people, racial minorities, legal immigrants--then I do think we need to stop and consider whether requiring ID is really an attempt at voter intimidation and manipulation. Plus, how would requiring ID actually stop fraud if it were as significant as people think? Anybody with enough money to afford a fake ID, who really wanted to commit voter fraud, could do so. If we believe that illegal immigrants are going to risk deportation in order to vote illegally, because voting illegally is so important to people, why wouldn't we believe that people wouldn't obtain a fake ID to commit voter fraud? The problem I have is that the rationale for requiring ID seems to be "Well, what's the big deal? People should have an ID anyway." I just don't think we can create laws putting up barriers to voting based on the idea that some of the population has that such barriers aren't really such a big deal. They should be created because there is a demonstrated need for such laws, and there is simply no demonstrated need for requiring voters to show ID.

I don't see how that teaches that being gay is "moral," any more than teaching about, say, Eugene V. Debs is teaching students that socialism is correct or than teaching about Ronald Reagan means students are learning that being a conservative Christian is the right way to be. I also don't see how that's persecution. Is anybody planning to take away your right to believe that homosexuality is inherently sinful, and to teach your child that? There are plenty of things that school children are taught that, as a very left-leaning person, I do not agree with at all, particularly around capitalism and competition. I don't feel that I am persecuted because schools don't teach everything from my perspective, or even if they teach things that I outright disagree with. I'm free to teach my child otherwise at home, to educate them differently, and to otherwise counter that teaching.

I'm pretty sure these investigations have happened, and widespread voter fraud has not been found. I think we need to think about this practically. People seem so convinced that illegal immigrants, for example, are illegally voting in large numbers. Let's consider that. What is going to happen if they are caught? They'll be charged with a crime and deported. What is going to happen if they get away with the fraud? They'll get one stinking vote in an election. Do we really think that the chance to cast one vote in an election--in a political system where both parties treat undocumented workers pretty badly--is worth risking arrest and deportation to people? I can't imagine it would be, and all evidence indicates that it isn't, and that illegal immigrants are not casting illegal votes in even small numbers, much less numbers significant enough to make a difference in an election. From an article about voter fraud, describing two efforts to crack down on/study it: http://www.slate.com/id/2272405/

I wish I knew, because it's my husband who has this issue, not my kids. He looks angry/upset/unhappy ALL. THE. TIME. It drives me crazy. I just find it kind of viscerally upsetting to see somebody walking around looking like that, and he finds it annoying that I'm constantly asking if he's okay. I tell him that if he doesn't me to ask him if he's okay all the time, he should try not to walk around looking like somebody just kicked his favorite puppy! It leads to a lot of misunderstandings.

I'm so with you. I love ancient Greece; ancient Rome, not so much. I think a lot of my issue is that, while I love The Iliad and The Odyssey, I absolutely loathed reading The Aeneid. I think my DS will enjoy all of the warfare, though, so maybe that will help me get through it.