lovemyboys
-
Posts
1,444 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by lovemyboys
-
-
We need to let the economy "fall" to straighten itself out. The best analogy I heard was related to a family. If you give a family a million dollar credit card, of course the economy around them will improve. They will buy steak, hire a maid, take exotic vacations, buy a new car, etc, etc, etc. All those businesses will improve (esp if you then consider other families have their credit cards too).
BUT, the bill will come due. Suddenly the extra help will be fired, they'll be eating beans, that car will last for years and many people will be out of jobs.
BUT, if they get another credit card, life will be back till normal.
TILL that bill also comes due.
Many countries are running through credit cards under the guise of stimulating the economy. Yes, it works in the short run, but... when will the bill come due? When will the credit (investors - now mostly from China - stop)? IF they had bit the bullet and lived within their means in the first place life would have been far better.
To those that believe the Great Depression of the 30s was helped by FDR, the history channel had a great show on it... If I recall correctly, we are still paying for that debt. Morale was helped by FDR, but not numbers. WWII ended the depression (but not the debt). Many historians believe the US would have been better off keeping a hands off policy. We'll never know since we can't go back and try it, but at this point, we are several credit cards further down the line and I, for one, don't want to see ANY more taken out.
And yes, we have more than three generations that live off some form of welfare. My guess is it's been going on for ages (church groups prior to official welfare). I have kids in school where I work that openly tell me they plan to live off "paychecks" from unemployment to welfare. I'm all for cutting it off (for generational "followers"). Welfare reform definitely helped some, but not all. Their mentality is, "why work when others will work for you?"
This is one born and raised democrat that has since switched to financial conservative due to what I've seen in real life, both in school (where I work) and with hubby owning his own business.
Yes, gov't has to quit spending. Yes, it will hurt, but in the end, as a country, we will be better off for it - very similar to those on Dave Ramsey's course. It would have been better to have done it long ago, but we Americans like our perks and freebies too much.
GREAT post! Thanks.
-
Go Ask Alice came to mind. Lol
I was thinking sitcoms, music from that era would at least give a flavor for styles and sounds.
LOL!!!!Besides drugs, rock n roll, and sax, that era also had the nuclear age, Vietnam, civil unrest, Cold War, an increased interest in aliens and paranormal activities, divorce became common place, disco, and big hair (sorry I couldn't resist).
I know it is for a boy, but American Girl does have books about this time period. Also, VP has some about the cold war. I cannot think of any movies at the moment. But, shows made in the 60s and 70s would give a good look at style, clothing, environment. Maybe something like Brady Bunch or Nancy Drew/Hardy Boys would give a glimpse at what the interests and styles were during this time. Just a thought.....
-
I guess that it is rather subjective whether you think the 4th of July celebrates war or not. It seems to me that celebrating the anniversary of the Declaration rather than the surrender at Yorktown or the first battles at Lexington and Concord shows where we put the emphasis. That being on our divinely granted rights and independence rather than on military victory and bloodshed. Thus we celebrate those freedoms which we have been "endowed by our creator."
Great distinction, thanks.
The first thing that popped out at me was the line about celebrating winning our freedom on July 4th. Actually, we declared our freedom on July 4th, we didn't win it until the Battle of Yorktown, many battles and hardships later. It's nice that Britain decided to give Canada, Australia and New Zealand their political independence without a war, but I doubt that would have happened without the American revolution. In fact, I doubt Bolivar and San Martin would have liberated South America or the French revolution would have wiped out absolute monarchy without the example of July 4th. It's amazing that such a powerful idea got off the ground in a colonial backwater and that it spread like wildfire around the world. It certainly deserves a few fireworks and a wienie roast!:iagree:
-
I thought you were celebrating the birth of your country as an independent nation. I can't see how that is un-Christian. That is politics and not religion as far as one can extract religion from anything in a religious person's life. If you were celebrating the violence of war and had called it "We killed the Brits Day" I'd say your focus lacked a bit of peace and love!
Rosie
:lol: Seriously though, good points.
From a Christian perspective, the birth of this country has meant many years of religious freedom and the growth of churches, Christian charities and charity in general.
I understand that the blogger is tying it to guns and war and all, but really, he's also overlooking things like Matt. 21:12 and Eph. 6:10.
-
Do you have a source to support this so that I may try to learn more from it? I am always still learning, but IMHO I suspect that greed is more of a factor when it comes to outsourcing our jobs. Taxes are substantially lower now for businesses and for people compared to the 1960's and 1970's from what I have read in numerous articles. For example, the highest tax brackets used to have a 70% to 90% tax rate. I had a family member who used to be in that bracket and who did quite well and had a business and over 200 employees. His tax bracket did not prevent him from earning a lot of money or starting businesses or hiring people.
I think greed is more of a factor since today CEO's average about 400 to 700 times the average worker compared to the 1960's when they only made 42 times the average worker:001_huh:. Then there is the top layer of executives who also make enormous sums of money when compared to the 1960's and adjusted for inflation. How can the average American compete against people who make slave wages in China and elsewhere? The sad part is that I truly believe that more jobs could be kept here without increasing prices substantially if there was less greed at the top IMHO.
My 2 cents:)
This may be true for a small percentage of the biggest companies just as it's true that a small percentage of actors make huge salaries (although many of the professional athletes make great salaries).
But most companies are smaller and the owners and managers don't make huge salaries. They also work extremely long hours, especially in the early years getting the business off the ground. Another way to look at it is the risk involved too.
Like the current financial regulations for banking -- the new laws that are being proposed supposedly result from recent abuses by the large institutions. But in fact, these regulations will harm small, local banks by adding fees and regulations and eliminate loans for small businesses, farms, etc. This will impact all of us. And it's really unnecessary.
-
In what ways do they suggest stimulation? Printing money? "Creating jobs"?
IMO, this is no place for government. As a new business owner I am more aware now than ever what government interference can do to the economy. We have a ton of laws we have to follow that are generally pointless...not all, but most. This inhibits our growth as a company which keeps us from being able to expand and hire more people. Not to mention the fact that we are seriously gouged on taxes. Cities/counties/states have needs for certain laws and taxes but not only do they go too far, the feds make it far worse.
I know this isn't a popular opinion to some here but it's my firsthand experience. We are not able to live off of what dh makes through his business because of some of the laws. If they were lifted, we could automatically grow. Until we can change our situation some, dh has to work a second job. If the Feds would stop trying to control every step we citizens take, our economy would be booming.
Thanks for this key perspective....how the economy and regulations really do effect businesses that could and would be hiring more.
In general -- I too would be reluctant to follow much of Krugman's ideas -- he supports additional (borrowed) stimulus and seems to be against deficit reduction proposals. Among other things in recent years, he sees a couple of peripheral people as the being singly responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis which helped to deepen the current economic recession. He completely ignores many of the key players who are Democrats. That's just intellectually dishonest. I think I'd want to read what they wrote or said rather than relying on the NP label.
-
Wonderful! Happy happy anniversary to you and dh!
Have a great celebration! :001_smile:
-
For many of us, I would venture that this is largely a theoretical debate. And I do agree, Angela, that it's difficult to have these discussions with people who have dealt with infertility. When others are able to conceive with such ease that they make "decisions" regarding pregnancy, these women (couples) are hoping for viable embryos and the possibility of a successful pregnancy.
This is exactly the attitude of dissassociating oneself from the reality that the moral quandries of abortion and IVF are similar. This is not theoretical it is a fact. A basic understanding of embryology and human reproduction is all that is needed to see the problems inherent in each situation. To surmise that somehow women who face fertility issues have the moral high ground over those who do not is unwarranted. There is nothing morally superior about spending a fortune to create potential life and then either terminate some so the others can thrive or leave the potential life in the freezer until you are too old to safely carry a pregnancy to term and then refuse to let the potential life be used for stem cell research or for a childless couple. A potential life becomes a commodity . The selfishness that is often ascribed to women who terminate a pregnancy by those who wish to end legal abortion is morally no different from the selfish acts involved in IVF and the dispersal of the potential life .You are basically saying that women who are pro choice are only that way as they could get pregnant with ease thus terminate with ease. That is not the case. Tell that to my dear friend who found out her son had nothing but a brain stem and was dying in the womb. She had the privilege of people in her face calling her terrible names as she could not have the termination done at a hospital here. Much of the rage that was tossed in her face was by people who claim to be pro life but are not at all just anti abortion. They embrace couples who use IVF with no regard for unwanted created potential life and certainly love the death penalty. My friend wanted this child desperately. It was not to be.
Oh how desperately sad for your friend. There are no words for that kind of loss.
It doesn't even feel right to address the rest of your post, but it shouldn't be ignored either.
My post was mainly to sympathize with Carol and to thank her for her honest and gracious answers to the series of questions she encountered. It is apparent that she approached her situation with a clear appraisal of the conundrum. And Angela made a good point re: particular issues unique to infertility in this discussion.
It looks like you're putting words in my mouth or assuming intentions/attitudes based on my short paragraph. You have no idea where I stand on this issue and yet throughout your paragraph describing your friend's horrific experience, you direct specific points at me ("this is exactly the attitude...," "you are basically saying...," "[you] tell that to....").
I understand that you wanted to say the points that you did here and that the vehicle was secondary. Perhaps the next time you might be more careful.
-
Many, maybe. Unfortunately, it is difficult to discuss one's issues with IVF, because it invariably hurts the feelings of someone who is already grieving over infertility. That is one reason you won't hear much against IVF. There is a certain, "if you've never suffered through infertility, who are you to dare to say whether it's right or wong?" mentality that silences much debate.
And yet Carol has hung in there and answered repeated questions about her opinions which, as she has shared, are at least in part based on her personal experience with the IVF procedure.
Carol, you've been very open and gracious and have added much to this discussion.
For many of us, I would venture that this is largely a theoretical debate. And I do agree, Angela, that it's difficult to have these discussions with people who have dealt with infertility. When others are able to conceive with such ease that they make "decisions" regarding pregnancy, these women (couples) are hoping for viable embryos and the possibility of a successful pregnancy.
Again, Carol, thanks for being so gracious question after question. :001_smile:
-
I too found it interesting to see how much one's political views colored one's impression of Palin
..........
At least it should make future discussions about women politicians more interesting.
That's certainly true -- on both sides.
Those with more liberal views couldn't even acknowledge what a huge stride forward it was for young women (and men!) to see women in a presidential election. But my point was that Palin and H.Clinton were both the targets of huge attacks and the feminists were nearly universally silent.
The recent crop of female candidates is a direct and positive benefit of these "feminists" on both sides of the aisle. And with so many, do you notice that we're discussing issues and political positions rather than "what's it feel like to be first?" questions.
A refreshing outcome.
-
I can understand being upset about a "double standard", but why can't that mean holding MEN to a higher standard?
Good question.
I read an article a few months ago by a feminist author who asked a similar thing. The sexual revolution has freed men from pretty much all responsibility wrt reproduction and the consequences of more casual relationships.
Interesting family history, btw.
:001_smile:
-
I can't be this old. I remember wearing an "ERA" button in the 70s when the constitutional amendment for equal rights was this. close. I mean, I was a kid, but it all seemed so... "I can grow up to do anything and be anything", you know? It didn't matter *what* that thing was going to be - it was the OPTION.
When Hillary Clinton was running for President, I was SO proud of her. It didn't even matter to me whether or not we agreed on everything. I was just happy that I had lived to see the day that a woman, with a KID (a beautiful, well-spoken one at that), was RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT!
Gloria Steinem (again, a person with whom I've had my disagreements) has been the face of the feminist movement my entire life. Love her or hate her, she has been out there pushing, even when others have said... eh.
But now this: "you can't be a feminist who says other women can't" have an abortion.
What?
I can't be a proponent of women being paid equally for equal work, for not being sexually discriminated against, for breaking through the glass ceiling, for having the right to stay home and raise their children without being seen as "less" in society for, for AAAAARRRRRGGGGG!!!! Unless I agree to your LITMUS test on reproduction?
Who died and made you a diety?
a
I'm right there with you, asta.
I've met Steinem and attended her lectures. I've marched for women's rights, etc. My parents raised me to be a strong, successful person.
So it really does irk the h*ll out of me to see her and so many of the feminist icons in the past couple years ranting on about who should and should not be a feminist. Your last sentence says it all.
Not to take this down a bad trail (*please* if anyone responds to this, please stay with asta's point), but I was especially disheartened to see some of the Palin-bashing going on a couple of years ago too. Here was a woman who had it all -- successful political career, independent attitude, athletic, successfully juggling marriage and family with a fully-committed partner. But, stop the presses, she doesn't believe exactly as you (feminists) so she's got to be completely trashed?? Are you kidding me? I get that they saw/see her as a threat to feminist ideals and political positions -- so go after her on that. The diatribes and misogynistic vitriole by so many liberals and the complete silence of the feminists in the face of the same just left me with so little respect for those feminists that I'd met and marched with so many years ago. Hillary got a surprising amount of similar treatment. I was shocked.
Their rhetoric was empty. :001_huh: :sad:
-
http://aubreylively.blogspot.com/2010/06/drama-of-american-history-review.html
I finished the book this afternoon & am less in love than I was. The full review is on my blog, so as to limit controversy here. I think it's thorough enough (w/ page numbers & quotes) to help people determine if it's a good fit for them or not.
HTH! :001_smile:
Thanks. This blogpost gives more perspective on this series, which really does require more time and research given its size (volumes), limited availability and price than others.
Serendipity that the one book available to you was one that mirrors a time period you are recently (and personally) familiar with. Thanks for sharing your insight.
:001_smile:
-
There are no non-biased history books. I have found that some history books that attempt to be non-biased are often insufferably dry.
If you're looking for a overview providing important facts (dates, people, places, occurrences) that one should know, there are what I like to call "cliff notes"-style books. These can either be used as the basis for filling in timelines, creating notecards of facts to memorize, or as jumping-off points for further study. Some books like this include Short Lessons in US History, Artner's Reader's Guide to American History, and Everything You Need to Know About American History Homework. You can also extract "facts to know" from E.D Hirsch's books.
But I think you need to dig deeper to bring history to life. These summary-style history books are good starting points and often point you towards additional reading.
As for Howard Zinn, please bear in mind that his work, like that of all good historians, is biased as well. I don't think you can write a "living history book" unless you are passionate about the subject, which typically includes having an opinion and a point of view.
The portion of the Eric Foner review quoted in an earlier post is incomplete. Here is some more information from Wikipedia:
WhenA People's History of the United Stateswas first published in 1980, thereviewer,historian, described the book as filled with telling quotations and vivid descriptions of usually ignored events, and said that "Zinn writes with an enthusiasm rarely encountered in the leaden prose of academic history." However, referring to Zinn's focus on "the distinctive experience of blacks, women, Indians, workers and other neglected groups," Foner said, "The portrayal of these anonymous Americans is strangely circumscribed. Blacks, Indians, women and laborers appear either as rebels or as victims. Less dramatic but more typical lives — people struggling to survive with dignity in difficult circumstances — receive little attention", adding, "A People's Historyreflects a deeply pessimistic vision of the American experience."Both Foner and Zinn are well-known leftist historians. This is not to detract from their scholarship; rather it is to point out that they, too, have an agenda.
Here's another perspective on the book, also from Wikipedia's article on Zinn:
In a 2004 article in Dissent critiquing the 5th edition ofA People's History of the United States,history professorargued that Zinn's book is too focused on, and wrongly attributes sinister motives to the American political elite. He also characterized the book as an overly simplistic narrative of elite villains and oppressed people, with no attempt to understand historical actors in the context of the time in which they lived. Kazin writes, "The ironic effect of such portraits of rulers is to rob 'the people' of cultural richness and variety, characteristics that might gain the respect and not just the sympathy of contemporary readers. For Zinn, ordinary Americans seem to live only to fight the rich and haughty and, inevitably, to be fooled by them."Kazin argues further thatA People's Historyfails to explain why the American political-economic model continues to attract millions of minorities, women, workers, and immigrants, or why the socialist and radical political movements Zinn favors have failed to gain widespread support among the American public.I'm not saying you shouldn't read these books. But please don't be fooled into thinking the author has "no agenda".
In my view, one of the many benefits of living in a democracy is the freedom to read and discuss books written from a number of different perspectives. I would recommend doing just that.
Thanks.
I often hear Zinn come up in homeschooling circles as a reliable resource. It's good to get some perspective.
Appreciate all the review comments in particular.
:001_smile:
-
We're huge fans of All-About-Spelling. I love that it systematically goes through the rules and then practices with tiles, on paper and dictating phrases/sentences. It's one curriculum I've been so happy with, I've never been tempted to try others.
I am hopeful of being able to write this sentence next year...! Just got this for my spelling challenged child.
:001_smile:
-
Thanks for these suggestions! I'm looking forward to checking them out. Anyone else have an idea?
Thanks for this question. Perfect timing!
-
I wouldn't do anything else. Things do get damaged in shipping. I've used paperbackswap a lot and had a few books acquire damage on their way to me.
I've also found amazon marketplace conditions to be quite variable. I saw a book listed as very good condition, then marks it has lots of highlighting. Well to me, that's not very good condition, regardless of the cover and binding.
IMO, I would keep the refund and leave good feedback. Sounds like they jumped the gun a little on the refund, but that's better than having to deal with no communication.
Haven't sold anything on these places, but I gather that positive feedback/ratings effects a lot for these sellers so they'd rather keep you quiet and happy than giving bad feedback.
-
I agree that a partial refund would've been sufficient -- basically knocking the book down from very good to good condition with a note about the cover.
Had a similar experience with an ebay seller. I was very polite in my short detailed note about the difference in product description vs. reality. In my case, it was waaayy different. The seller responded very aggressively, to the point of being rude and nasty.
When they react like that, it makes me wonder if they're not anticipating it because they know what they shipped wasn't as advertised. :glare:
-
I have been a member of several such groups and we were fitted clothing, not baggy, and no one has ever said anything. Many groups put such statements in because they don't want problems. I would see what others wear and wear similar clothes on that day. THe values of the groups I have attended were far beyond any clothing I had to not wear for a day.
:iagree: Exactly.
Like Hillary said, the only way for OP to know is to speak with the group members/leaders. It's also quite possible that they've encountered something already that made them feel the need to do this.
Homeschoolers are an independent lot. We go to a fabulous concert hall for matinee music programs several times a year. I've been amazed at the casual attire, including baggy grey sweat pants & shirts, that I've seen on kids and parents at these events.
-
Honestly, I would call and speak to the organizers of the group and discuss this with them first.
Then I would make a decision. If clothing will be an issue, I wouldn't sign.
Until you have clarification directly from the group, all the opinions and personal stories of people on this board will not help you make a decision.
Great answer, Hillary. Groups and rules vary so widely, talking with the actual members is the only way to go.
-
With good reason. :001_smile: He was sworn in in January of 1969 and the moon landing took place about five months later.
I'll check how the series treats some of your other general examples (I realize you weren't talking about the series in particular, but I'm curious) tonight.
Not to start a whole firestorm because I'm headed out the door, but many presidents are given credit or blame for things that occur during their watch. When they've had a hand in policy, legislation, etc., that effects something directly, then that's pretty valid. But some things just occur. Wrt the moon landing, no Nixon was just peripheral. But had Humphrey won, would his name be more associated with it?
The larger point of my post was that the accreditation is often variable depending on +/- of the issue and where on the political spectrum that leader is. It was an observation I'd heard not long ago. And yes, you're right, it wasn't really speaking to this series at all, more in the way that biases affect perceptions in recent history.
Worth keeping in mind off to the side somewhere as one hears history reported.....
-
I want a well written history book that reflects my values to some extent especially with regard to the topics that are covered. Omissions are very important and telling as well as unsupported conclusions. If, for example a history book that purports to be a record of the 20th century paints McCarthyism as a cultural blip or fails to even mention the communist purges of the time it is not acceptable for use in my house. Anything written by Howard Zinn is fine for my family as we discuss each and every position promulgated by the editorial power of the author. We also read a number of other texts for American history by N. Philbrick, Ken Burns, Shelby Foote, Arthur Schlesinger etc.We also use many autobiographical texts particularly about civil rights including the rights of all humans to be treated equally before the law whether they are hetero or homosexual/transgendered. I would never want a history textbook that is bland and more importantly , so unwilling to take a position and provide evidence of some sort for that position. That is the fundamental task of critical thinking , to be able to entertain an idea, follow it to its conclusion and then decide whether the evidence for the position taken is logical, moral, immoral, illogical or logical and still completely unethical ,lacking in any sound reason and so on . If you are not doing these things in some fashion it seems pointless to me, regardless of your political persuasion , to bother with educating your dc . If your discussions are only to reiterate the points made by the author in the book then you are teaching your dc to respond to what they think you want to hear rather than engaging them in discussion and debate about issues.
I know it's natural for those of us here in the US to cover our own country's history in greater depth than world history....
just wondering, do you do world history to this depth? (honest question) If so, how do you gather information, source materials, etc.?
tia
-
I don't see it myself.There is a difference between stating that something happened during a particular time period in history versus saying it is the result of a president's policies. Once you venture into cause/effect you are giving your opinion. And even deficits...no president operates in a vacuum. The President can't make the deficit soar without the cooperation of the Senate and House. I'm really not trying to argue politics. It's just that when a history book artfully connects events that happened during a particular president's term in an effort to pin all the bad things that happened on him....well, this is where we can find bias. And bias is in the eye of the beholder.
Have you ever heard the comparison....
Herbert Hoover was responsible for the depression, FDR's New Deal saved the country, the US entered WWII....JFK had a vision of going to the moon, the US landed on the moon in 1969.
The US dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasake, the US was at war with Vietnam, the US "won" the Cold War in the late 80s, GW Bush invaded Iraq, the US increased troops in Afghanistan.
I heard a commentator run through a long series of details from the past century and I can't really do it justice .... except for the point:
In the media and history books, Democratic presidents get credit by name for what are viewed as triumphs/positives, but "the US" is used when it's negative or controversial. Do we hear that Truman dropped the bombs on Japan or that "the US" did?
The converse is true when dealing with Republican administrations. We don't even equate Nixon with landing on the moon.
An interesting observation of the tendencies. Of course, it bears remembering that any president is part of the flow of history and has great influence and power, but not often as singly responsible for any one thing good or bad that is laid at his feet.
:001_smile:
-
Maybe Reagan
And Carter.
What to make with my CSA veggies?
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
Have you seen the A to Z cookbook put out by a CSA group? It really helped me with some of the less familiar veggies.