Heather in Neverland
-
Posts
7,516 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Heather in Neverland
-
-
Started reading:
Falls the Shadow by Sharon Kay Penman
Still reading:
Follow Me by David Platt
The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking by Oliver Burkeman
Finished reading:
1. The Curiosity by Stephen Kiernan (AVERAGE)
2. The Last Time I Saw Paris by Lynn Sheene (GOOD)
3. Unwind by Neal Shusterman (EXCELLENT)
4. The Husband's Secret by Liane Moriarty (EXCELLENT)
5. The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith by Peter Hitchens (AMAZING)
6. Champion by Marie Lu (PRETTY GOOD)
7. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by Daniel Pink (INCREDIBLE)
8. Cultivating Christian Character by Michael Zigarelli (HO-HUM)
9. Detroit: An American Autopsy by Charlie LeDuff (um...WOW. So amazing and sad)
10. Pressure Points: Twelve Global Issues Shaping the Face of the Church by JD Payne (SO-SO)
11. The Happiness Project: Or Why I spent a Year Trying to Sing in the Morning, Clean My Closets, Fight Right, Read Aristotle, and Generally Have More Fun. by Gretchen Rubin (GOOD)
12. Reading and Writing Across Content Areas by Roberta Sejnost (SO-SO)
13. Winter of the World by Ken Follet (PRETTY GOOD)
14. The School Revolution: A New Answer for our Broken Education System by Ron Paul (GREAT)
15. Lost Lake by Sarah Addison Allen (LOVED IT)
16. Beyond the Hole in the Wall: Discover the Power of Self-Organized Learning by Sugata Mitra (GOOD)
17. Can Computers Keep Secrets? - How a Six-Year-Old's Curiosity Could Change the World by Tom Barrett (GOOD)
18. You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself by David McRaney (GOOD)
19. Hollow City by Ransom Riggs (OK) -
:iagree:
I completely agree with this. For us, restrictions make many things a "forbidden fruit" that is wanted more. Without limits, ds has created a nice balance of screen time with a dozen other activities.
Exactly! We keep our kids busy with sports and activities and church and schoolwork, etc. If they want to spend their "free" time... as in what's left of it... playing video games then I don't sweat it. -
What does it hurt for the others to observe while one plays? Good observation skills and implementation practice. LOL
We solved this by getting each boy their own computer. I understand. I don't like sharing my iPad either. :) -
I do not have actual time limits. If their schoolwork is done, chores are done, we don't have anything else going on, etc. then they are free to play Minecraft or other video games. It's a leisure time activity no different than the amount of time each day I spend on these boards, on FB, watching TV, reading novels, and so forth.
I have found that the more restrictive I have tried to be, the more fighting we had and the more they wanted to play. When I allow them to self-regulate they do better and actually walk away from them on their own. But it does require a different mindset towards video games which took me a bit to realize. -
This is me, too. But I never "played" all that much as a child either. I was mostly about reading. So I seriously don't know how to play very well. Boring, I know.
-
-
(((Hugs)))
-
My son's recent math test (he got 100% on it!!!).
-
It's built in so nothing.
-
What self-indulgent nonsense.
-
Did the lawyers get paid in book credit too?
If I was a lawyer I would totally take the book credit!!! :) -
Love Mulan. "Dishonor on YOU, Dishonor on YOUR COW". :)
:)
Our family favorite is "Who spit in her bean curd?"
-
Ok, I'm just being honest here. I wouldn't put my 5 yo on a school bus. However, that's just me, and I haven't been in your situation. And I don't think that it's horrible to send her, especially since it's not a long-term commitment. :)
Some of the most awful things I have ever experienced or witnessed happened while I was riding the bus to and from school.
Will she be on the bus with a large number of kids? Kids a lot older than she is? How long is the drive?
Those things would worry me more than her going to a public school for a few hours a week.
Can you attend with her and observe the first time to see the program in action and see how she reacts?
-
$18.92
Woo hoo! -
Whew. I thought I was the only one. I saw the movie. I liked it OK but it didn't knock my socks off. There were definitely positive elements but it just wasn't as amazing for me as it seems to be for everyone else. The snowman was kind of funny, I guess. But even the music wasn't that awesome to me.
I like Mulan better. :thumbup1:
-
That word has a negative connotation and people who throw it around are usually jealous or insecure or both. Ignore it.
-
My close friend battled breast cancer last year and is now doing very well (cancer free but on the five year plan). Modenr medicine is truly amazing.
No one can tell you it won't be hard because it will be, but the prognosis is so much better for women now. Praying for your strength to endure.
-
Started reading:
Hollow City by Ransom Riggs
Still reading:
Follow Me by David Platt
The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can't Stand Positive Thinking by Oliver Burkeman
Finished reading:
1. The Curiosity by Stephen Kiernan (AVERAGE)
2. The Last Time I Saw Paris by Lynn Sheene (GOOD)
3. Unwind by Neal Shusterman (EXCELLENT)
4. The Husband's Secret by Liane Moriarty (EXCELLENT)
5. The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith by Peter Hitchens (AMAZING)
6. Champion by Marie Lu (PRETTY GOOD)
7. Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by Daniel Pink (INCREDIBLE)
8. Cultivating Christian Character by Michael Zigarelli (HO-HUM)
9. Detroit: An American Autopsy by Charlie LeDuff (um...WOW. So amazing and sad)
10. Pressure Points: Twelve Global Issues Shaping the Face of the Church by JD Payne (SO-SO)
11. The Happiness Project: Or Why I spent a Year Trying to Sing in the Morning, Clean My Closets, Fight Right, Read Aristotle, and Generally Have More Fun. by Gretchen Rubin (GOOD)
12. Reading and Writing Across Content Areas by Roberta Sejnost (SO-SO)
13. Winter of the World by Ken Follet (PRETTY GOOD)
14. The School Revolution: A New Answer for our Broken Education System by Ron Paul (GREAT)
15. Lost Lake by Sarah Addison Allen (LOVED IT)
16. Beyond the Hole in the Wall: Discover the Power of Self-Organized Learning by Sugata Mitra (GOOD)
17. Can Computers Keep Secrets? - How a Six-Year-Old's Curiosity Could Change the World by Tom Barrett (GOOD)18. You Are Not So Smart: Why You Have Too Many Friends on Facebook, Why Your Memory Is Mostly Fiction, and 46 Other Ways You're Deluding Yourself by David McRaney (GOOD)
-
. Gay marriage was not considered a civil right before. Now enough people think it is to not only pass laws to support it but to back those laws up with a judicial stamp of approval.
You're right, this is the ideal way to go... A law the voters said yes to and a judicial stamp of approval to seal the deal. I guess Michigan will never get that chance. What's done is done. :(
Well it's late here and I am off to bed. Thank you all for the thoughtful discussion.
-
So what you are looking for is a way for Michigan to save face? Well they don't get to. They have had ten years to put something on the ballot overthrowing the previous ballot measure. They didn't. If you and your relatives wanted that opportunity, you all should have made it happen. You all couldn't be bothered. So the federal courts did it for you.
You are jumping to some pretty harsh conclusions. Save face? No. Admit they were wrong? Yes. And isn't that what we want as a society? To grow, get more educated on a topic, form new opinions, find new levels of acceptance of one another?
I mean sure, you can force it through and make gay marriage legal through court cases and get the right to marry but if the world is still a bitter place full of hatred for people different from you, did you really win anything?
And you need to admit that not many people actually know how to get something on a ballot. The entire legal process is so complex and the average person is just trying to make a living and get by. It's certainly not for lack of caring and the fact that you say we "couldn't be bothered" to do anything about it shows your attitude. You sound like someone who doesn't want people to admit they were wrong and change their minds. You just want to stick it to them for not coming to the same conclusion you did at the same moment you did. Well, thank goodness for clever people like you! Makes up for all the rest of us ignorant people, I guess.
-
Frankly, the opinion of the people in the state of Michigan is irrelevant at this point.
I guess that's where we differ. I don't think the votes of the people of this nation are irrelevant.
Let me give you an example. Ten years ago I am willing to bet that most of the people in my family voted for the ban. I don't know for sure. But based on what I know about them I can assume. They were not real keen on the idea of gay marriage. Ten years ago my cousin was 17 years old, and a lesbian, but none of us knew that.
Fast forward ten years later. Things have changed drastically in our nation. More people are open about being gay. More people are accepting of it. Everyone in my family knows about my cousin, and her partner, and have reacted in ways I could not have predicted... With love and acceptance.
Life and experience changes you. If gay marriage was put to a vote today, I guarantee most of my family would vote differently. That marks a drastic shift in their thinking and maybe they would like a chance to say "I was wrong and I want a chance to show that publicly with my vote." But they will never get to.
I don't think that is irrelevant.
-
Interracial marriage was made legal in a time when many Americans did not support its legality (1967).
Do you think the states should have waited for public approval to allow interracial marriage?
That actually is what happened, in a sense.... from Wikipedia's Loving v. Virgina page:
Despite the Supreme Court's decision, anti-miscegenation laws remained on the books in several states, although the decision had made them unenforceable. In 2000, Alabama became the last state to adapt its laws to the Supreme Court's decision, by removing a provision prohibiting mixed-race marriage from its state constitution through a ballot initiative. 60% of voters voted for the removal of the anti-miscegenation rule, and 40% against.[15]
Do you think the anti-miscegenation law should have been enforceable until that vote- that is, until 1999?
Of course not. But I would ask if it was ever put to a vote in Alabama before 2000 and if so, when? Perhaps if it had been put to a vote sooner it would have been voted out sooner?
If the proposal in Michigan had been just voted on last year then I would say it is overly optimistic to think the public had changed its mind. But it's been ten years. Can't we at least let them update their votes based on changing sentiment, or let new voters have a chance to be heard, before we just assume what their vote would be and give the decision to a judge instead?
-
Gay marriage was "clearly" unconstitutional for a long time because almost everyone involved in the process of making, enforcing, and interpreting our laws thought gay marriage was wrong. As public sentiment shifted, questions arose about the constitutionality of denying it. When enough cared, it became unclear territority, because not enough rulings had been handed down. We are still in that territority, though moving rapidly towards saying it is unconstitutional to deny it.
I don't know who said, "The law is a living thing," but it is so true.
The very fact that it has been ten years since the last vote is what makes me want it to be voted on again. If public sentiment is shifting, shouldn't that public have a right to be heard rather than having a decision from one man handed to them?
Think of it this way... Ten years ago people in Michigan voted to ban gay marriage because, as you put it, "almost everyone involved in the process of making, enforcing, and interpreting our laws thought gay marriage was wrong." That is true.
Ten years later public sentiment seems to be shifting all over the nation. Lots of states are allowing gay marriage. Some through voting and some through lawsuits. Ten years from now it is entirely conceivable that gay marriage will be legal in every state. Some states will be able to say "we voted it in because we want it" others will have to say "it's legal here because a judge said so."
We will never know which kind of state of Michigan is or would be in the future because someone else decided it rather than letting the people speak. Many people of voting age right now who might vote in favor of gay marriage weren't old enough to vote back in 2004. They will never get to vote on it, to show their support. Michigan will always be the state that was forced into it. Maybe some people are ok with that but others are not.
-
As a general rule, federal judges are not allowed to give 'advisory opinions' -- i.e., rule on a prospective case. The theory is that advisory opinions violate the separation of powers.
State attorneys general can and should give their own opinions as to whether a particular law or initiative might be vulnerable to constitutional challenge. For example, the state legislature in my own state is currently considering a law that would limit picketing by labor unions. The state attorney general has written an opinion explaining why he thinks that this violates the First Amendment -- as in, a federal court would likely rule that the law was unconstitutional, based on the history of how courts have ruled on similar First Amendment questions in the past. The legislature, though, can certainly still go ahead and pass the law. And if it does, then the executive branch has the obligation to enforce it (e.g., the police will have to ticket picketers who violate the new law). A picketer who is arrested can then challenge the constitutionality of the new law. It is only at that point -- when there is an actual 'case or controversy' -- that the courts are allowed to rule on the question of whether the law violates the First Amendment.
Of course, plenty of times state legislatures do withdraw proposed legislation when the attorney general warns that it might be unconstitutional. The voter initiative process is more complicated and varies from state to state, but the same general principle applies -- the judicial branch cannot prospectively strike down legislation.
This is a wonderful explanation. Although I admit that it doesn't make me feel a whole lot better. So essentially someone IS giving the state legislature advice on these controversial proposals and the legislature just chooses to ignore it. And we give people the vote. They vote. It then gets overturned. The attorney general gets to say "I told you so." The state legislature gets to appear like they were trying to please the people or the special interest group that was paying them knowing all along that it would get struck down later.
So it's all a big farce.
Anyone familiar with beaches in Thailand?
in The Chat Board
Posted
Koh Samui
Phi Phi
Krabi
Phuket is dirty and overrated.