Nah. I don't think that. In fact, the moms I know didn't looked "roughed up" - that's kind of extreme. Everyone's body handles creating and nourishing life differently. And they didn't have a makeup team and good lighting working things out for them, either. Maybe that would have helped ;).

With reference to my stating that the women I know who practiced EBF looking "worn"...it wasn't a slam; the three women I know looked a lot more exhausted than the lady on the cover of the magazine. They were also older than her. And all three of them have readily admitted that it was hard to maintain and that they "felt" it. I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone - heck, I looked a little "worn" nursing twins when they were infants, too. The body works a little overtime to keep up the milk supply, posture is altered for many of us, etc. My point was that the magazine purposely made her look incredible to gain attention. The photo is not steeped too much in reality, regardless of how fit the mom is. So, I'm sorry if I offended anyone - wasn't my intention. :blush:

:iagree: I also agree with the poster who suggested it was a good day for the ped##hiles. I know a few moms who practiced EBF. Their bodies did not look like that mom - these women were worn. They also did not look as...smirky...as that mom did. I feel like this mom did this to prove something, but something on her own behalf rather than the behalf of EBF moms or children. What that something is is beyond me because I guess I feel nursing is an intimate thing for the health of the child. I'm okay with nursing an infant discreetly in public because the littles need to eat often, but to blatantly and publicly nurse a 3 year old in such a manner as to end up with that photo on the cover of a very public and popular magazine has little to do with the child and everything to do with Mom. Not okay with it at all.

Agreed. Not in good conscience. I'd look elsewhere to cut $200 first. OP, your budget is pretty much on par with mine (per person, that is; I cook for 7). I struggle every week trying to stay on budget lately. However, summer is coming up and my plan is to actually spend more during those fresh produce months so I can save more during the winter months by canning, freezing, etc, by taking advantage of the less expensive produce during the growing seasons. If you eat a lot of meat, you could certainly save money in that capacity by purchasing a plant-based protein source or extending a chicken to make three meals instead of one, but not knowing your regular diet, it's hard to say if that would help to the tune of $200.

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

As far as I know, she was assigned to read only 2 books - one by the school counselor and one by the teacher. She wasn't seeing the counselor as a therapist - the counselor was just trying to "be there" for her as the divorce went down (which, I think would be typical). Everyone was upset about the divorce and the circumstances, but as far as I can tell, the girl was hardly suicidal (everyone was kind of glad to have dad finally out of the picture). Mom did have the girl seeing a counselor outside of school just to help her through things, though. She is no longer seeing a counselor because it just didn't seem necessary. I don't think her mom knew she had to read the books.

Fair point. Dd and this girl have been best buds for about 10 years. Dd is the one who told me these things as they unfolded. She was the one who was so annoyed about the whole thing because this girl is a lot less "in the know" than the average kid (she goes to a private parochial school in a smallish town), yet still so impressionable. Possibly she was aware of those things, but I don't think so intimately - those books tend to bring "possibilities" around with full instructions, especially for those who wouldn't have otherwise considered them completely. I guess I just feel that since the school didn't first discuss these matters (from self abuse to her diet) with her mother, they really overstepped a great deal. The school is not her parent; her mother is. And her mother is very concerned about all of her kids. By declaring a sort of parentage over this child and introducing her to other ideas, I fear they may have given the entire family even more to deal with than they otherwise would have had.

Agreed. And Mom doesn't really have too much choice; she's stretched financially, the school knows the situation and has now inserted themselves in it. I think she feels confined.

Dd13 has a friend who has been enrolled in private school all her scholastic years. She has recently gone through a fairly public and traumatic divorce of her parents. The kid has had a difficult time, but has handled it well. Here's the scenario about which I'm asking: Based on the publicity surrounding her parents' divorce, the school therapist required her to read the book Cut. There was no indication of her being depressed or otherwise self-abusive, yet she was "required" to read this book. I feel quite certain that this activity might not have ever been an option for her because I don't think she ever understood it as an option. Then, for her health class, she was to document all the food she ate during the course of that particular week. She was to receive a grade for that documentation. She and her mom went on a "girls only" vacation during that week just to catch a break, and she ended up documenting a lot of fast food, pizza, etc. She received a poor grade and was taken aside to be spoken to about her diet. Upon some in-depth questioning, she ended up sharing with the teacher that she didn't eat breakfast; she felt rushed in the morning and wasn't hungry before she caught her bus at 7am, so she often skipped breakfast. Her teacher made a phone call to her mother to express her concern about anorexia and assigned the girl to read Wintergirls. Her mother was aghast. Again, I don't think this particular girl would have understood that starving herself was an option based on depression. Here is my problem. This child, who has gone through some admittedly difficult issues as a result of her parents' poor decisions, is also just barely 13. She may not have ever considered "cutting" or anorexia or bulimia as being options as an "outlet" at this age. But now she knows all about it. Did this school overstep their boundaries by introducing her to these "options"? Certainly, they could have done more harm than good. How much within their rights do you think they are to "intervene" in this child's life so...deeply - grades, phone calls, assigned reading about controversial and deep subjects? Personally, I'm inclined to feel they've overstepped and may have done more harm than good. What are your thoughts?

I'm sorry. :grouphug:

Hoping that child is found soon. :grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

What kind of sugar are you trying to avoid? White, refined, HFCS? Or that as well as naturally occurring (like honey) and mildly processed stuff (like maple syrup)? It's all tough if eating out a lot (especially since most restaurants don't do the latter anyway), but avoiding burgers/sandwiches (or anything that comes with a bun/bread), Chinese fast food sauces, and desserts will eliminate the majority right off the bat. Beyond that, I would eat pretty freely, I think. And congrats to you for giving up that soda!

:grouphug: Wishing you all the best.

If you have flour, you can always make pasta - it's pretty easy and filling. I agree about checking into a food pantry; they are there for this reason. If I had $8 for the month, I'd have to consider going. Wish I lived closer to you.

All right, Jean. You've just made me feel better (and I would love to experience a holiday with your family!!); we went to my parents' house to enjoy (or not) Chester's Chicken ordered fresh from the gas station, gravy from a packet, Suddenly Salad, cold canned baked beans, WalMart Coleslaw, and a blueberry pie made from pie filling and canned crescent rolls. But I still adored the company and wouldn't trade it for anything (except maybe some good food) :). I can always eat when I get home.

I think it was a fair adaptation. I always go into books-into-movies movies ready to be disappointed - there's no way the big H can ever visually do what words, details, and imagination can do. While it wasn't everything I would have liked, it wasn't the complete let-down I was expecting. I thought it was pretty good, acutually. ****POSSIBLE SPOILERS**** My biggest complaints are that A) the cannon did not sound during Rue's death - it so needed to go off and really send the whole message home. I kept waiting and waiting, and when it didn't happen I wanted to stand up and yell "What the?!" But I did not. Because I am composed. And B) The Haymitch in my head was much fatter, much older, much drunker, and much wittier and edgier than Woody Harrelson (Haymitch was my favorite character and I was not impressed). And C and D) Peeta had blue eyes and they did a lousy of job explaining how she came to accept him after she thought he was with the group trying to kill her. All that said, I thought it was pretty darn okay. I liked it.

Coming late to the party (as usual). A few days ago I received an email from change .dot. org asking me to sign a petition put forth by Trevon's parents to arrest the man who shot him. I waited to hear more about the story before I signed anything. Then I received a second email requesting the same thing. My heart was breaking for this family, but still I didn't feel qualified to sign squat without having any real details. It has been a week and little bits and pieces are trickling out, but nothing that I feel should educate a general citizen enough to make any sort of judgement. It is a tragedy, absolutely. This family lost a child. Anytime someone dies, it is a tragedy. I still don't know how the shooter was assessed. I still don't know the circumstances around his death. I do know that a lot of political people/groups are gaining popularity with this, though. And I think that that is interfering with "rest of the story". And I think that's a big fat shame because now that it has been politicized to this point, we may never know the whole story and justice may never be done. My thoughts, prayers and sympathy go out to that child's family.

:iagree: When our cat started peeing on stuff, that was the problem. I love my cat, but the pee...oh man - not a problem I ever want to deal with. We checked to see if the problem was one we could possibly help him with, and it was - he had crystals in his urine and it was painful to pass urine. He associated his box with pain and decided to do so anywhere else. A change of diet and some antibiotics returned him to his usual cool self. And a lot of enzyme cleaner and vinegar on our part. Good luck - I hope that's all the problem is.

I love you people. I have shared this with my family and friends and no one gets it like you do. It was hard enough to believe this was a real story. Then, trying to get through the grammatically painful "memo" (which looked a lot like a formal letter to me), and then trying to understand how chicken nuggets are a substitute for a vegetable, and then trying to figure out how it was an error on one teacher's part because she should have given the child milk instead (because as we all know, milk is now a vegetable :svengo:), I'm about to blow an eyeball. Really, I need to visit more often than I have these days. I miss you people.

I found out today that the superintendent who admonished this kid is also the editor in chief of the paper that originally ran his story. :confused: I'm so troubled that kids are being taught with such horrible inconsistency. Is this kid eligible for first amendment rights or isn't he? Should he do what he is asked, or shouldn't he? Should he be punished for his opinion, or shouldn't he? I was listening to this being discussed on a radio show today, and the guest stated that this entire case (and it's two issues; the first amendment breech and the child's treatment by the super) would be a full year of debate in law school due to all of it's intricacies.

Well, often, I make dinner and we eat it while watching tv (Jeapordy, Wheel of Fortune, the evening news...) - does that count? :D

No, I would absolutely not be comfortable with another individual deciding another person needed to be involved with my family without my consent, and further, I would not be okay with the appointed individual needing to be alone with my 3 1/2 year old. But, that's just me. Wouldn't happen. Of course you can refuse. No, it's not neglect - if you are neglectful of the welfare of your kids, then it's neglect. If the person/people appointed are not appointed due to your neglect, then you are not necessarily neglectful. Based on what you describe, were I you, I would not allow it. Period.

Wow. I hadn't read that one. The superintendent called the boy "ignorant", threatening him with suspension, and suggesting he violated the school's bullying policy? All without notifying his parents? Well, heck. I did know he was asked to write an opinion article and that there would be a counter article (the link to the original newspaper article is at the bottom of the one I linked in my first post), but...wow. And, even at a national level, they still used that kid's real name. :confused:

Another problem I have with this whole article, to be honest, is the fact that they used this kid's name. So, the kid writes an article about his opinion of a controversial subject, someone complains, the article is pulled. Then, the kid's name is published in his own local news paper (not just his school paper). If this same kid killed the neighbor girl, his name would not be released because he is a minor. Is he not still a minor in this case? Did his local paper have the right to publish his name? Sorry, but this whole article (and the one preceding it) raises a lot of questions for me, and I'll be it raises a lot of questions for the kid and other kids his age. If I'm confused about what to think of it all at almost 40 years old, I can't imagine what other kids his age might be thinking.

Okay, I agree with all of you :D. But, then that raises the question of whether or not the school did a wrong by publishing it in the first place, or by retracting it later. And since the school is technically "public", it is funded by the taxpayers who do have the right to free speech. The whole thing has me, admittedly, kind of confused about what should have happened originally.