I disagree. My kids have played hockey for ten years. I have been to approximately 473,000 hockey practices in that time. Do I have to be "present" every time? Absolutely not. I drive my kids to hockey. I may even sit in a viewing area where I can see them and they can see me. But I am not "present." I am reading, grading, playing on my phone, watching a televised hockey game, etc. It is my kids' hockey practice, not mine. If they play hockey so I will be super attentive at their practices, we have a big problem. I also don't sit attentively and watch my kids play video games, read books, build with Legos, or hang out with their friends.

This reminds me of people who castigate parents for being on their phones or whatever while the kids are at the park instead of waving and smiling the whole time. Sometimes parents need a break. Sometimes parents have non-kid things that are urgent. Sometimes a kid doggy-paddling in the pool is not the most important thing going on in someone's life. I think your anger or irritation is misplaced. I don't think it's cool to be so negative about another parent.

My son currently needs a 28-34 pant. Guess how many companies make 28-34s? :glare:

No way. This woman has flaked on multiple arrangements to pick up the item over 3.5 years. She is owed neither the item nor a refund at this point.

If you do the Questions to Consider for each episode in the Great Courses guidebook, you will spend more than 12 hours on the GC part. You can also use the bibliography for each episode to find supplemental reading

Personally, I think Hakim is waaaay too detailed for a fourth grader. Your mileage may vary. We really loved the Maestro books mentioned upthread. Don't be in a hurry to use resources for older kids that could possibly be used more profitably when your child is older. Hakim is directed at middle schoolers.

My kids are now a college senior, 9th, and 8th. Based on my experience, you don't have to "get serious" about history until high school. My kids didn't really get anything out of making a timeline. It was a lot of work, and I don't think making our own was necessary to help the kids see and understand how history was playing out across cultures and across time. Get a book or find a website that has a nice timeline to use for reference, and save your effort. If your kid thinks timelines are great fun, by all means, make one, but if you're considering doing it just because you think you "should," don't bother.

I don't care for this characterization. It implies that anyone who has any sort of risk factor for having a baby with any sort of genetic condition or medical issue is somehow guilty of causing harm to their baby. You're basically saying that older parents, people with certain diseases, people with genetic predispositions, etc., shouldn't be having kids.

It's not just the financial cost. Society has finite resources, and choices must be made in allocating them. I believe we allocate far too many resources (not just money) to incarcerating people in this country. Incarceration has severe negative affects, both on society and on individuals, and often the negative impact is not associated with an attendant positive outcome for society or the individual. Just because something is "wrong" doesn't mean incarceration is the right way of dealing with it. My point with the speeding was that we really shouldn't incarcerate people to stop them from doing things that don't really affect other people if we're not going to incarcerate people for doing things that are more likely to cause harm to other people.

Also ... do you honestly feel that it's in society's best interest to jail people for consensual sexual relationships? We could also jail people for speeding, because while they are in jail they can't speed. Is that just? Is it wise? It would probably result in greater harm reduction than jailing people for incest.

Until you get out. ;) The woman who is the subject of this article has stated that if they go to jail, when they get out they will just move somewhere else. I was just discussing this with my husband, and in his typical, "Why are you even worrying about this, you people at TWTM discuss the weirdest things" way, he said, "So if the government tries to prevent incest to prevent inbreeding, is it also going to try to prevent people with heritable genetic conditions from breeding?" He then said, "It's not my creepy life. I don't really care what people do if they aren't hurting other people." I agree with him. :D

Yep. I'm completely aware of that. There is absolutely nothing that the government can do to prevent incest and inbreeding. Absolutely nothing. Criminalizing it won't prevent it, and it's debatable whether it would even reduce it, given at a) most people are not open about their incestuous relationships, so identifying them to punish them is difficult and b) it's not a given that criminalizing a behavior is actually a deterrent. That said, the government doesn't have to give an official seal of approval to incestuous relationships. The government can, and does, say "this is not ok" by not issuing marriage licenses to related individuals. Not all states even have criminal incest laws anymore, and marriage licenses are available to people beyond a certain degree in kinship. Some states would consider a sexual relationship between my kids, who are not blood related, to be incestuous. It's kind-of all over the map. Given all of that, I think it's a waste of resources to incarcerate people for consensual sexual relationships, and beyond attempting to discourage incestuous relationships that could lead to inbreeding by denying marriage licenses, I think this is an instance of the government needing to just stay out of people's private lives. It seems that you and I disagree with this, and there is little more I can say to explain my position.

Society has a legitimate interest in discouraging inbreeding. Prohibiting incestuous marriage is a legitimate way of trying to do this. But as large numbers of people regularly have sex without producing children, I don't see it as legitimate to criminalize incestuous sex solely to prevent inbreeding. And beyond the inbreeding issue, I don't see any legitimate reason we need to criminalize incest (again, of consenting adults). Thinking it's yucky is not a good enough reason. What if a brother and sister in their 60's decided to have a sexual relationship? If there is no chance of creating children, what would be the purpose of throwing these people in jail?

I think that adults should be legally allowed to have a sexual relationship with any consenting adult they choose to, whether I personally approve or not. I am fine with not allowing blood relatives to marry, but I don't think the government should be interfering in consensual adult sexual relationships.

First of all, that's not at all what you said in your first post. Secondly, I think it's an unwise use of taxpayer money to jail people for incest as long as both people are consenting adults. Third, there are lots of unfortunate things that happen in society (such as your elaborated scenario) that we can't make laws to address. If a parent tells her kid it's awesome to have sex with family members but doesn't actually do that with the kid, are we now going to prosecute thought crimes? People teach their kids all sorts of things I think are wrong. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal to teach them ideas Haiku thinks are wrong.

I thought this was rhetorical. What do you mean by ok? Would I think it was awesome? No. Would I think they should go to jail? No.

So what? Either people are legally consenting adults, or they're not. There isn't a "technically an adult but still needing protection from being young" clause. Whatever their issues are, throwing them in jail won't solve them. I don't think incest is cool, but I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to involve the legal system if the participating parties are consenting.

If they put these people in prison, they are massively wasting taxpayer money. I don't like it, but they are not hurting anyone. I mean, the woman sounds crazy, but being crazy is not illegal.

We are not creative for lunch. My son eats a sandwich, fruit, and tortilla chips. My daughter makes something with beans and tortillas. I eat leftovers.

I think the idea is that the swim team gets a percentage of the price of the card, and people who buy the cards get their $20 back through savings at Subway.

I have looked at them many times, but my dd finds them entirely too busy. I do think they contain good information.

I have disagreed with Mercy in the past but have never found her to be anything but genuine and kind.

No, it's not. School Composition precedes Writing in English.

School Composition by Maxwell may be just the ticket. It's free on Google Books.

I requested to join the group buy.