I don't remember where I read this, but I read that "back in the day" the father's last name was given to a child because it showed the child was "legitimate" and the parents were married. And at a time when single mothers or "illegitimate" children would have not have done very well in society, it was important to show that and for the father to "claim" the child. (It's easy to know who the mother is because she birthed the baby, but before DNA testing paternity could be questioned.) I thought that's where the tradition came from anyway.

This has never occured to me before. Now it's gonna bother me. Thanks a lot. ;-)

I don't know very many people who didn't change their name. One was a 2nd marriage and the wife wanted to keep the same last name as her kids. For me, I recognize that taking the husband's name is a tradition. I don't think there's anything inherently right or wrong about it. But I do like the way having the same last name symbolically unites a husband a wife into one family. It's the Jones or Smith family, instead of a combination of people with different last names.

You know that holographic plastic? I'm not really sure what it is, but you sometimes find it lunch boxes or binders? The sound of fingers running it down gives me the chills. It's 100x worse than nails on a chalkboard for me. I can't even touch the stuff. So of course kids like to chase me around making that sound when they find the right piece of plastic.

My mother's breast cancer was the most aggressive type. They cut it out of her breast and because it was the aggressive kind, did chemotherapy "just in case." We found out later that the cancer had already spread to her head (long story) before it was ever diagnosed. As soon as she was done with the "just in case" chemotherapy, the breast cancer that had already mestastized to her head began to grow rapidly. I've read (on the internet... I'm no expert) that chemotherapy can make some cancers come back even more aggressively. She went back and forth between radiation and chemotherapy for several years, and each time she stopped chemotherapy, the cancer came back with an ever-lovin' vengeance. She'd go back on chemotherapy, only to find the previous effective chemotherapy no longer worked for her. It was horrible. One day the doctor was trying to be optimistic and that there was still a chance she could beat it and LITERALLY the next day we're being told to take her home to die, which she did just a couple weeks later. I'm still kinda pissed about it, to tell you the truth. It's just my gut feeling, but I really believe that had she not had chemotherapy, the cancer would have eventually killed her, but much more slowly and she wouldn't have been so daggum sick for the last 3 years.

I reserve the right to change my mind... but should I ever get a mammogram and should it ever detect something, I think the most I would do is have it cut out. That may depend on the type of cancer and if there have been any major breakthrough with cancer research and what stage it's at... But I am pretty convinced that chemo actually accelerated my mom's cancer and killed her faster than it would have if she'd never had that damn routine mammogram. That being said, I was also really shocked to see that Pres. Carter was receiving radiation for brain cancer. If it were me at 90 years old, seeing how painful radiation therapy is, I would just prefer to let it go untreated. Radiation was awful.

There's a much bigger (and emotional) back story here... but even after watching my mother die of breast cancer I still don't think I'll be getting any mammograms. I may change my mind at some point.

I think this is a really good point. While the culture has changed there are still a lot of responsible gun owners in the US that use their guns for sport and hunting. And that's precisely why this gun control conversation never goes anywhere. Why should we up guns because of the few who behave irresponsibly? I do think the overall culture has changed. I think that video games are part of it. But I think the breakdown of the family is even more of the problem. The majority of mass shooters come fron broken or dysfunctional homes and many are without a father in the home. For this little boy, for him to have even pointed a gun at the girl to me says there was an unnacceptable level of violence and dysfunction displayed in the home. I know kids are impulsive, but happy healthy kids don't threaten to kill or hurt people like that. We can talk all day about how to get guns out of kids' hands, but at the end of the day we still have broken, dysfunctional homes where kids are taught anger and violence.

My kids were at a "back to basics" school that teaches Spalding. They spend all of K learning the phonograms and towards the end of the year start sending home easy readers. My kids took off reading and I became a believer. I have no idea what the neighborhood school does. When my mother taught at a nearby school she was converted to Spalding and used it in her own 2nd grade class, but it wasn't schoolwide. That was decades ago though.

Yes. DH and I were both teachers. I taught, fresh out of college, back when NCLB was being implemented. I was frustrated by NCLB but didn't see it the big picture and how NCLB was part of a bigger problem. I loved teaching though and didn't see any problems at the time. DH taught in an inner-city school and was very frustrated. The administration was terrible. It was like they didn't even want good teachers there. His was a "failing" school, so they had outside companies coming in to "teach" the teachers how to do their jobs more effectively. What they tried to require of the teachers really was ridiculous. The school had an extended-day, because, you know, the more hours of school, the better. *eyeroll* But then his 2nd year of teaching they took away the extra stipend for the longer school day so the teachers were essentially teaching an extra hour a day for free. DH loved teaching, but was increasingly frustrated. While I'm not anti-public school, I do think there are some big problems with the system and I don't see it getting any better. DH has a teacher friend who thinks that homeschooling, private and charter schools take good kids away from public schools, and that's part of the reason schools are getting worse. He thinks "good kids" (aka: white, middle class) should *have* to go to public school because it benefits all other kids. My head is still red from the head-banging over that one.

I've made both of these recipes and liked them. http://www.melskitchencafe.com/creamy-white-chili/ http://www.melskitchencafe.com/slow-cooker-red-beans-and-rice-with-chicken-sausage/

There is a black market for guns because convicted criminals are not allowed to legally purchase guns. So they get them illegally. My point was that laws don't really deter people from doing things.

Oh wow. I just read a little bit about that. Horrible, horrible, horrible. And he spent months planning, buying and preparing. So sad.

I see this from a different perspective. I know a lot of people who have a "healthy culture" surrounding guns. They are used for sport, hunting or self-defense. When we were dating, DH was super impressed at my clay shooting skills. ;) We don't have a gun culture problem. We have a violence problem. And a mental health problem. I see gun violence as a symptom of a much larger problem. Families and relationships have broken down, violence is glorified and people think more about themselves than others.

There are gun safes that keep them accessible to the gun owner, but not to anyone else. In fact, I'm pretty sure that large gun safes are even bolted to the floor so they can't be stolen and wheeled away.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I really don't think you can compare traffic laws or child-proof lids with gun laws. I think a better comparison are drug laws. Drugs are illegal. Drugs ruin lives and kill people. And you can get them everywhere. Criminals who have (and use) guns don't give a flying rat's behind what the laws are. Gun control won't do anything to stop the most violent criminals from killing people with guns they already have and/or obtained illegally.

I know that some of these guns by mass shooters were obtained legally. But the laws required to prevent crazy people from obtaining guns would also prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. There's really no way to predict who *all* the crazies are before they commit a crime. And while it would be nice to think we could just get rid of all the guns in this country and live happily ever after, that's NEVER EVER EVER going to happen. Criminals will always have guns. Cartel members and terrorists will always have guns. That is never going to go away and it's just going to get worse. That's why Chicago is the way it is. A certain portion of society has broken down and criminals rule because they know law-abiding people can't defend themselves. I agree that people should be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. But more than that, I think people have a right to defend their homes and families from criminals and crazy people. You don't have to have a gun. But I think law-abiding citizens have a right to one if they want.

Most people definitely should not conceal carry. However, I have no problem with off-duty officers, military personnel or other well-trained people carrying. I know some people feel better when they see "gun free zone" signs outside schools and libraries and stores. To me I think it's idiotic. Someone hell-bent on killing people is not going to see a sign like that and say "oops, I guess I'll have to go shoot people up elsewhere." All it tells them is that everyone inside is unarmed.

People willing to commit crimes (especially as heinous as mass murder) are also willing to illegally obtain their weapons. I don't know that more gun laws will help. If everyone was required to turn over their guns today, only the law-abiding citizens would do so. There would still be millions of illegal guns left on the street. I think the problem has more to do with mental illness than anything. I read one article where this shooter had made comments about how these once obscure mass murderers are suddenly famous and all over the news. I do wonder if the obsessive reporting over these shootings is what fuels some people to do this-- they want to be famous. Even if they're dead.

Dh thinks they are just trying to make us feel sorry for him and like him again. Most of the time I wish his character would just leave!

Both?

Years ago my 2 and 3 year olds broke out in hives. Raised, itchy welts all over their hands and feet. Dr said it was a reaction to a virus. It went away on its own a couple days later.

I was worried about how quickly DS was slimnming down from a super chunky baby. The ped nearly rolled her eyes at me because he was in the 50th percentile. From his 4th bday to his 5th he actually lost 1/2 pound. It was then I got serious and after a bunch of tests we found out hehas a fructose intolerance. I think his chronic diarrhea just meant the nurients blew right through him. Maybe it's just her genetics, but I would rule out any digestive issues.

It is driving me nuts that they just can't tell the whole story to the wife who originally raised Marigold. Telling her would probably help her understand and move on.