Coming late into this discussion. It reminds me of another thread from a year or so ago, that discussed helping kids post-college or high school. My thoughts about this are summed up here. Basically, I think that one's economic background/ class really plays into whether such financial support is a help or a hindrance to an adult child's independence. On one hand, expecting a young adult to carve out his or her own financial independence can be the impetus to that young adult's future success. Some people are very driven and ambitious, and whether they get help or don't, they will just keep plugging away until they reach their goals. Other people have different goals, or don't have that same drive. I can see financial assistance, in this case, to become a crutch if the young adult doesn't feel compelled to reach a sufficient level of financial success. For dh and myself, we plan on providing our ds a certain level of support through college and perhaps beyond. We want him to have that base in order to position himself early on to invest, make money, and become financially independent. I consider that to be mine and dh's investment - in the future wealth of our son, and perhaps, his children, if he has any. (Also - if ds does realize his dream to become an NHL goalie, he claims he will support his dad and me. So, there is that consideration. :lol: )

That's what I think, too. Like I said, I understand that situations can get strained or weird, and sometimes a different home is best. But, I think there should at least be some sort of formal oversight and official transfer of custody. Kids are not puppies in a box, after all. If someone has legally adopted a child, and thinks that child needs to live with a different family, that should be reported or registered somewhere. Otherwise, the initial family is going to be the one receiving all the special services or funding (isn't that fraud?) and if there are issues in the second home, how would anyone (besides the immediate parties) know about it?

I apologize if this has already been discussed. I just came across this Washington Post article regarding an Arkansas state rep who, along with his wife, "rehomed" their difficult adopted daughter. The girl ended up being raped by her new "father." Ok, I have heard of a lot of things, and I know family situations can get very weird very fast. I'm not confusing this with some kids who run away, or end up choosing to live in another home because of difficult circumstances or dynamics. But rehoming kids?? That is a word I usually associate with finding animals new homes, not kids. And these kids were really young, too. Parents can legally just send their kid away to live with another family? I thought adopted children had at least some oversight!

Not gonna argue that social mobility in the US is wide open. It certainly isn't. My point was simply that particular "big players" in the UK's monarchy and upper echelons (the aristocracy, as it were) are considerably less permeable to outsiders than those that make up the US' wealthy class. No, most Americans cannot become a Rockefeller or Kennedy, but a minority of them may become the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or be like the Daytons or the Walton, become their own powerful brand and be admitted into that select echelon of society. I do get that the official duties of the monarchy are mostly ceremonial. My opinion is that their real impact is the political influence they have on the UK, by virtue of their birthright and their wealth. None of them earned that, it was bequeathed upon them, the right to live their lives of incredible privilege, by way of an arcane system that was once predicated upon divine right. Not that I think the US' oligarchy or its entrenched class of entitled high ranking politicians, bankers, and corporate moguls is a huge improvement. It's not, because it, too, is inherently unjust. It is a system based upon exploitation of people, of resources, of nations. I think we can do better, and I hope sometime in the future, people will mature enough to favor their more empathetic impulses and less their animalistic need to dominate others.

So the footprint thing. Yes, I'm concerned about the environment, and I want something to be left for my kid, and his kid(s), if he chooses to reproduce. But, what pisses me off is that most marketing is geared toward small portions, and that means more individual packaging. Which means more oil used for plastic, for production, for transportation, etc. It's a huge freakin' waste! (Don't even get me started on those stupid K-cups.) Bigger families use, overall, more food, more fuel, more resources, because, yeah, there are more people. But, I also see that bigger families tend to go with more bulk items (less packaging), more consignment/ second hand clothing, and there are limits on things like how long a hot shower may last. The reduced packaging thing is actually pretty huge, IMO. Also, because they tend to only do activities where multiples can participate at the same time, or they just don't do them, means fewer trips back and forth. And take my ds' sport, ice hockey. You know, we have to drive him to most of his practices and games during the week, and we have to provide him with "new" pads or skates every so often, and so forth - now, multiply that by 15 kids or more, most of whom come from smaller families. Why? Because most families with several kids cannot afford to shell out $1500 or more per kid, and spend so much time on practices and games. Ponder the larger impact of the above scenario, multiplied by thousands and thousands. It's my opinion that kids' sports, especially travel teams, are a considerable source of carbon emissions. Ice rinks, basket ball courts, soccer fields, base ball fields -- they all must be maintained, and this means more energy and carbons expended. It's just part and parcel of the deal. I've noticed that as larger families add more and more kids, they tend to reduce participation in such activities. Which, one may argue that is sad for their kids, especially for talented kids that don't get to develop their skills at the higher levels. However! I do not think it's fair to only target these families for carbon footprint violations because of their number, while ignoring the overall usage of carbons by smaller families such as mine. At some point, kids grow up and they do establish their own households, and in the case of bigger families, that does overall mean more housing, more cars, and more children down the road. I don't know, however, how much technology may improve housing, or whether most of these adult kids will be driving gas guzzlers or turn out to be serious bicyclers, or people who eschew anything but public transit to avoid the expense of owning and maintaining a car. And it may be that it's MY single kid that ends up driving the huge Suburban (I hope not - those vehicles are so unsexy lol), while his peers from a 8+ kid household are either walking or taking the bus or using Uber. The point is, that here, in the present, I recognize that there are real differences in the way many larger families meet their housing and food and entertainment and other needs from the way families like mine do. Thus, it would be really hypocritical of me to judge other bigger families on the basis of how "green" they are, when I know that our lifestyle does include things like travel sports and Disney World vacations and 45 minute long hot showers (don't hate me, I moved from Texas to MN). And yes, those @%*!ing individually wrapped bags of chips.

No, from a 3D printer! Where did she learn social etiquette? Clown school??! Oy!

Thanks to El Nino, the roads may be dryer and warmer than usual this winter. I say we do it. Then, whenever other WTM groups talk about how they would have got together, except for this or that, we can say, Pish Posh! Minnesotan WTMers do it in the snow!!! :D :thumbup:

Yes, the park system here rocks! I read a statistic somewhere that about 95% of Minneapolis residents live within 6 blocks of a park. This city was built around the park system (and the breweries, lol), it's so awesome. Mergath, any time you come to town, you have to come over for a visit. We'll go to the park! ;) I really do like this city/ state, but this Thanksgiving, we're away from my family (in Texas) and dh's family (Pennsylvania). So, it's just us three, and dh is a vegetarian. I plan on roasting some cornish hens for ds and myself. No need to get a huge bird. I think we'll check out the Hollidazzle thing.

I've never seen any society that has a completely equal, just system. You say that the weakness of a meritocracy is that those who do not "win" are left out on the basis of their performance. I say that the weakness of a monarchy is that people are assigned roles based upon birth, and irrespective of individual ability or performance. The answer to both charges is that neither a pure meritocracy nor a pure monarchy is the answer. You champion a mixed system of monarchy and parliament. Others champion a mixed system of meritocracy and wealth-enabled oligarchy (which tends to provide the stability in a system like the United States', regardless of whether people are aware of it or not). Personally, I feel that all systems should be marching forward to a state of true egalitarianism -- that is, anarchy, where there is no state at all. The best definition of government I have ever encountered is "a monopoly on violence." That is government, any government, in its distilled form. Whether it is a local cartel or a nationally elected power, this is the right upon which any government ultimately rules - the right to exercise violence to force others to concede, be they citizens or subjects. At some point, in the distant future, I hope our descendants will have evolved socially enough to form coalitions and co-ops that are not based upon superior standing, or birthright, or any such inherently artificially imposed hierarchicalism. In other words, society should become more horizontal, and less vertical. As monarchies are much more vertical by design than they are horizontal, I would consider such a government to be an anachronism. I would not seek to impose such a government, especially, on democracies that have either either shed them or never had them to start with. A meritocracy may not be equal, and it may not be just - but its power structure is more malleable and is open to more groups of individuals, from the successful businessman who came from poverty and rose to power in Wall Street, to the determined second generation immigrant, who is a governor of a large state, to the descendant of slaves who is on the Supreme Court. Contrast that to Windsor, which until recently, had never even had a commoner wave from the balcony to the adoring masses. The House of Windsor, along with a good part of British high society, is not attainable to anyone except those born into those families. That does not mean it's not a legitimate form of government - but it does not seem to me to be moving in a progressive way, towards human beings becoming more inclusive and more balanced in relation to each other. I'm personally attached to the ideal of civilizations evolving to the point where mechanization and technology make jobs and such mundane things as "work to eat and work for shelter" completely anachronistic. Instead, people engage in activities that further the human race, intellectually, artistically, scientifically, philosophically, etc. And where councils of naturally inclined "leaders" are still ultimately gatherings of peers, with no need for governing or oversight by other more powerful groups of human beings. That is my ideal. Though most days I despair of the human race ever surviving long enough, or maturing enough, to achieve it.

Ha! DH is three quarters German. This city is like beer nirvana for him. I'm hopeful for a MN meet up sometime in the future for all the WTM peeps around here. That would be a blast!

I don't know. I have a half-baked theory that anything that's bought these days is deliberately packaged to make families with more than 2 kids feel big. To me, 4 or 5 kids is intermediate, with 6+ kids being largish, and 10+ kids very large. However, everything from ice cream bars to sedans is packaged for the 1- or 2-kid model. I mean, when you have to buy 2 or 3 bags of chips, when 20 years ago the same amount of chips (in ounces) would be sold in a slightly bigger, less air-filled bag, just sends this message to your subconscious, Hey, look how much more food and money your family goes through. Look at how many packages of ice cream bars you have to buy versus that family over there with just one kid. I wonder if people are even aware how perceptions about family are being shaped by industry, in the form of its advertisements, its packaging, and even in terms of "suggested serving sizes." You ever see any Lexus car commercials with more than 2 kids? I can't think of any. Those are the successful, beautiful people. You know, the ones that those financial commercials about "managing wealth" are geared to? Anyway, my point is, all this stuff just piles up into the subconscious, and suddenly, people who themselves grew up in families of 3, 4, 5 kids, look around and fixate on the family in the grocery store or the restaurant with 3 or more kids. Then, come all the inevitable comments and questions that are apparently pulled from the same wiki or something. I think the social design for smaller families is definitely more noticeable in certain regions, though, like where I live. Here in Minneapolis, big box stores like Costco and Sam's...if they exist, I haven't come across one here, like I used to in the Dallas/ Fort Worth Metroplex. So, here there are all these nice, upscale boutique type places (except for Target, lol), and I pity any large family shopping in these places. Ugh, the bill alone!!! Much less the looks of disapproval from fellow shoppers. Also, here a lot of people bicycle to the grocery store and other places. I could do that with my only child, who is 12 years old. How would a family of several children do that? I mean, you could do a trailer and do a child attachment to the adult's bicycle, but what if you have multiple small kids? Nope, gotta go with a Suburban or large vehicle. Which, this area, with its street parking and small parking lots isn't all that friendly to. Which is one of many reasons why this area tends not to include families with many kids (with the exception of some immigrant-majority neighborhoods), and why most families end up in the suburbs here. Also, the houses around here tend to be older and small! Then, there are kid activities. OMG. The expense. The time commitment. It's freaking ridiculous with ONE sport for ONE kid. My ds just spent 2 hours for a hockey practice today. They want him back tonight at 9 pm for a goalie lesson. Then tomorrow morning at 8 for another practice and team photos. Shit, no wonder I never got around to reproducing again. I can't keep up with the demands for ONE KID. So, apologies for the rambling post. I'm basically agreeing that large families are swimming against the tide, in that we are all being subjected to both subliminal and very obvious messages that kids are now a time-intensive, mission critical production that cannot possibly be undertaken in doses of more than one or two at a time. And those that attempt it are figured to be either very well-to-do, or are irresponsible, neglectful parents, whose poor children are doomed to underdeveloped careers in various extra curriculars like dance or soccer, lol. Also, they have different priorities in life. Also, Mother Earth. Because Suburbans. Big(ger) families, you got my sympathy. You have to be pretty independent and determined to raise a larger family in today's disjointed society, and I admire those that do it well. You guys are all that and a bag of chips. (Or three.)

Hey Xuzi! We just moved to Minneapolis in early September. We're in south Minneapolis, near to the Minnehaha Falls park. Very cool area. We haven't tried any of the home school coops here (been non-stop busy with work, school, hockey, and other activities, not to mention...unpacking took forever). However, we found the rules here extremely easy for homeschooling. When John called the local school district to turn in the form that declares that Jackson is home schooling, the official was very friendly and helpful. In Texas, where there are no regulations or oversight at all, school officials we occasionally encountered treated us as persona non grata. In that state, home schooling is like a separate, parallel universe. I guess that's fine if you're the type of home schooler that eschews any kind of outside input. For myself, I disliked feeling we were in no-man's land with no acknowledgment from the state that we even existed on the educational landscape. IMO, MN has sensible regulations. Standardized testing is required (if you don't have a Bachelor's degree) but the state does not need to see the scores. They simply want proof that a test (such as the Iowa, Stanford, etc.) has been administered. Also, this state offers an accredited H.S. Diploma through a recognized home school agency, where you send in transcripts, text book lists, etc., and the agency certifies the coursework. I like that that is an option, especially since it is recognized by the state. Anyway, we're still new here, so we haven't experienced a full year in home schooling. So far, no issues. It's been great. Regarding moving here in Feb. or Mar., this winter is predicted to be milder than normal. So, while I'm sure it will be cold, at least you may get a break if you have to move then. This city is great though. It's a very quirky place, with tons of small and independent businesses, like breweries, restaurants, consignment shops, and so forth. That goes for the grocery stores, too. There aren't are lot of big box stores like Kroger or Tom Thumb. Instead, it's mostly small independent grocers, community and farmer co-ops, community gardens, and the like, mixed in with Trader Joe's, Aldi, and Target. Food prices run about 15 to 20% more than when we were in Dallas, but more of the food is locally sourced and this is definitely a city of foodies. Lots of really good cuisine here. Also, there are parks everywhere. People here tend to be active all year round, so winter isn't so depressing. People skate, bicycle, ski, etc.; they don't all stay holed up. This city also has a ton of theaters and the music and arts here are fantastic. Those are my experiences and impressions so far. We're enjoying the adventure!

Yes, along with anti-immigration fervor, which has been building especially in some Scandinavian countries for at least a decade or more. It's been on the rise, and I expect that such sentiments have been whipped into a frenzy with the most recent attack. I'm honestly relieved I don't live in Europe right now.

I'm sure that the president's statement provided some comfort for some individuals out there trying to reconcile this bombshell. For myself, I thought the most important message regarding how the LDS church views queer individuals, which the new policy represents, was and is quite clear. As an outsider, I had considered the LDS to be one of the friendlier and more welcoming churches, and I liked their "no damnation" theology. As a result, I have always been friendly and welcoming to the occasional LDS missionary to my door. Now, while my response will still be polite, the conversation is over on my end. The LDS' church and its message of love and family have soured. Targeting children as a strategy to hold back the gay hordes? Ok, keep your unsullied family type. Not that the LDS church particularly cares about this agnostic person, but they have lost my respect.

Well, that didn't take long, did it? ETA: This article from a few weeks ago indicated that facism was already on the rise throughout Europe in response to the immigration issue. The whole situation over there is especially fragile now, I'm sure.

It's regrettable that Syrian refugees are likely to be blamed, as a group, for enabling the entry of ISIL terrorists. Yet, ISIL forces are precisely what the refugees were trying to flee. The thing is, this attack was so carefully organized and coordinated, my immediate suspicion is that this has been planned for some time - possibly pre-dating the recent surges of refugees. These may have been actual French citizens, who had been radicalized. Minnesota has had some recent experience of this with its Somali population (who started coming over int he 1990's) being targeted by ISIL for radicalization. The FBI recently foiled a plot involving several young men who were attempting to fly over to Syria for just that purpose. If it was French citizens, immigrants or not, they would have had entry to the country in any case. If it was a case of recent infiltration of ISIL terrorists among the refugees/ immigrants, I expect there will be very targeted pressure on that entire population. France unapologetically sent the Roma packing a few years ago; I'm wondering if this recent tragedy becomes the impetus behind a much larger forced exodus at some point. Anyone else care to speculate what the possible ends might be?

Whoa...blast from the past! If anyone is (re)reading this thread, I propose a drinking game for the word tacky, in order to greatly increase your reading pleasure.

Violence already has spread. These terrorist attacks are part of that conflict. Facism? Yes, from the far right in response to the tensions due to the attacks, and increased numbers of immigrants.

If you're a heathen like me, you pay homage to the mastermind of the cosmos...which makes you a follower of the Great Sagan. This means you rely upon your hedonistic five senses in order to unravel the mysteries of the universe through empirical laying on of hands on the evidence, as it were. Also, your holy vestments are yoga pants.

Not really. What you are basically saying is that whatever it is you believe, it simply is and that's why you believe it. It's a premise of sorts. When it is used to shut down conversations is when there is a line of argument taking place, and such a premise is offered as a supporting evidence, or as a proof, when it's neither. At that point, I would state, "That's not a valid response to the point or piece of evidence that has been presented. You need to show why, not what." And some people do not get that. They only get annoyed or angry because their belief is not accepted as a form of evidence. I don't care if that's enough for them to hold to a particular view; but do not seriously offer that up to me in the middle of a debate or argument as if I'm supposed to accept that as evidence. At that point, the person is not contributing to the conversation, but merely obstructing it. I hope that clarifies my meaning!

A few. I wouldn't want to see the pie chart distribution though. I'm sure it's pretty disappointing. I could introduce a few sticky topics with posters such as yourself, Faith, Moxie, a few others, who tend to engage the subject, and not the individual. But then, there are are others who would just derail the thread through angry accusations. Still others resort to irrelevancies, such as "I just feel it's true" in defending whatever, and don't or won't engage the actual argument or evidence. That's their way of frustrating or ending the conversation, which is I guess either uncomfortable or offensive. I'm sure there are a few non-theists on the board you feel you could trust to remain on topic and respectful in a religious thread, and others...less so. I'm not saying others shouldn't have these discussions, either for or against religion. I'm only meant to explain why I don't feel it would be a very productive use of my time to start up some discussions about some of my own questions and observations about Life, the Universe, and Everything. It just wouldn't end well!!

Also...just to stay on topic for this thread, DW is apparently a bigot. Who is surprised??? But, if I had the time, and the inclination, I might post a comment on his board to the effect that clearly God is calling DW to go the ME and express his beliefs. He must go to the those places at which God is clearly most pissed off...meaning somewhere between Syria and Iraq. We've already set up the GoFundMe account for his one-way ticket. Can we please watch???

Because honestly, some of the topics I would talk about would likely bring out the worst in both theists and non-theists. The last time I got involved in a very touchy subject, I remained on topic and avoided any personal attacks, and it still devolved into a shit fest. I don't believe most people are capable of divorcing their subjective feelings on something like religion. They always become defensive, and they always get angry. There is no such thing as an objective discussion in these matters. And when it comes down to having to explain and re-write, and re-write one's position because others are intent on mangling an argument that so threatens their position, it gets too tiresome and time consuming to be constructive anymore. Plus, I think it just pisses off SWB, because then she has to go in and clean up after everyone's mess (again).

lol...I'm pretty tired of the discussions, too, but mostly because I don't think anyone ever asks the really interesting questions regarding theology and philosophy.

You know what, ktgrok, I would agree with you. Especially I, myself, just don't have the time or the inclination to respond to every instance of a personal expression of faith on this board. Not enough hours in the day, and it would be akin to banging my head against a wall anyway. The point at which I have to diverge with you is that people use their faith all the damn time to justify imposing their morality onto the rest of the herd. That gets old even faster. And while albeto's posts may be annoying to believers, the overall effect is not impinging upon their lives in any way. It's not like she's Kim Davis or the Pope or or any number of religious-inclined individuals who are willing to use faith to shape public policy for the rest of us, and it's taken for granted by many people that that's just what they do and it's ok, because religious freedom and all that. Well, I don't mind that assumption of privilege being challenged, even if it's just on a discussion board.