Okay, I'm answering this with "certainty", but obviously it's all just suggestions. To me, this would be acceptable risk-wise in the situation: Those two friends only, no adult supervision necessary so long as outdoors. No other friends UNLESS you can be sure of their family's approach to stuff, but I've found it tiring to figure out (and then find out later that "safe" meant maskless farmers markets) so that's why I stopped neighbor kids. Park is okay, just leave if it gets too crowded (you may want to scout this before getting kids hopes up, or have a backup plan of ice cream or something). Masks if other kids are around, long sleeves, and hand sanitizer afterwards. When going inside house, strip long sleeves and pants. Optional shower; my shower is broken right now LOL so I can't fairly require this of others 🙂. I'd say no to basketball and football at this point, risk is going up both with contact, heavy-breathing-proximity and with ball-sharing. Obviously ok with bubble people. Church playground same as park.

I approach it as a risk budget. If the most important thing are extended family meals, then the majority of the new risk you take on should be budgeted for that. Then outdoor Mass, but maybe indoor Mass is put off a bit longer right now since it has a slightly-higher risk cost. Bicycling seems a lower risk cost, plus if it's an overlapping person from the extended family meals, I would say it's a "free risk." Walking between houses as long as you aren't licking the houses in between would probably be neglible; my DH, who since February has only been out for doctor appointments and this past week to a very limited church gathering, has been walking around the neighborhood most of the time and has seen it as no-risk situation for him (he crosses the street if he sees another walker, and has a mask with him in case someone approaches). Personally I wobble about neighbor kids. I've allowed it in times past, when I had absolutely no other risks outside of groceries. Right now I am not allowing it, as we are taking on a much-higher-risk-item to our budget -- we've seen my parents last week and they want to see us later in the month. They are high-risk in terms of they do not take any unnecessary precautions like washing hands or wearing masks in groups, so that is limiting everything else I'm willing to do.

The only way I've found to get around this type of embarrassment is get rid of the whole child. Ship them off to relatives or boarding school. You already have two, so at least you don't have to start all over again. Good luck! Alternative, only try if you have no foreign relatives: tell the 12yo you're always there if they have questions, but your room is private and if they ever need anything from you, they should ask you instead of searching themselves. I don't think this requires a full confrontation of the more delicate topic unless there's a history of snooping or it happens again.

I take your point, agreed. I was saying 'balanced court' in the way that it, if you NEED to balance a court, this is really what should be taken into account, politics shouldn't matter. But I wouldn't "force" a balance in this way or expect a static court where if a originalist retires, that ONLY an originalist can replace them. And I wouldn't expect someone, even with 40 years experience, to not evolve over time in their field and perhaps change their perspective with time, and also the influence of their peers. I'm totally fine with that. Thank you for pointing this out, though, I see how my original post could be seen as restrictive on this, and it wasn't my intention. And thanks for the link, looking forward to reading it.

I think we should be able to see their legal understanding/ideology, ie how they read the law (strict, constitutional word, more the spirit, etc) but it shouldn't necessarily reflect their political side. The law is the law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. Some laws are politically motivated, sure, but that does not mean that a judgement about a law should reflect political motivation. eta: when I imagine a "balanced" court, I imagine a Court made up of different LEGAL ideologies, such as the strict reader, the history-context reader, the letters-literal reader, etc. That I think should be the "standard" by which a balanced court would be created. (This isn't saying that a Court made of letters-literal readers would necessarily be bad, just that I think variety would help for more nuanced legal opinions and rulings.)

The funeral is next week*. Those wild sasquatches roaming neighborhoods and breaking into houses and indiscriminately killing husbands at 11am in the morning are a huge issue and need to be stopped! I saw the whole thing and had to give an account of how I escaped with barely my life and my bikini. And it ate all the cupcakes, too. eta: *You're all invited to the funeral. Pot luck afterwards. Please only being lead-free 4.5+ star crockpots approved by the Hive. Preferably red.

We were keeping this to a civic perspective only, I believe. Mostly, civil, too. However, I think I can say without getting into current politics that the first two statements I bolded are incorrect, at least as a blanket statement. Certainly for me. And it is both unfair and ungracious to paint anyone that disagrees with oneself as being something similar to poor losers. Also, I would say ANY packing of the court, regardless by size or by bias, is wrong and against what the Court is there for. I'm sure we both agree on that, yes? edit to distinguish bolds I'm responding to

I'd like to see punishments added to excessive or illegal executive orders. There has to be a disincentive to abusing this power. For example, if an executive order is obviously unconstitutional or unlawful, the presidency is ... idk, this is the problem, but something like restricted from executive orders for 100 days. Because the trend (again generally, not specific to the moment) is to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks, or how long it will stick before it's struck down on review. Or maybe we have "emergency" sessions within 48 hours to review executive orders by the Supreme Court to make sure they are legal, so that way the damage of following something illegal is shortened and minimized.

This...makes me uncomfortable. Maybe I am reading too much into it. I understand the reality of the situation, that humans bring their bias to whatever they do, and even the most judicial and logical of minds are going to be influenced by their personal views. Plus, the views of strict constitution, literal, vs meaning, etc. But to be blatant about "conservative" and "liberal" judges makes me really uneasy. Judges are not here to be conservative or liberal, they are here to read the laws and make judgements based off this. Yes the problem is "interpretation" of the law when looking at judgements, but I feel like judges should be expected to be above that. The problem is that we don't trust the people in power (generally, not specifically in this moment) to choose judges who hold to this expected standard. I think full on giving into this idea of bias in the court "is just reality and if you can't fight it codify it" would make things worse, because then those 5 guys that circulate would have even more power during their tenure and cases would be pushed/delayed/messed around to try and game the "right" rotation (if the rotation is known beforehand). We need a "come to Jesus" moment where actually neutral judges are put forth for the Supreme Court, not judges who are reflecting a political ideology. I can't expect it of any current politician or political party I know of, though. But it's what we need. eta: TLDR: I want a court with LESS bias, not more.

And he probably forgot the cupcake mix you sent him to the store for in the first place!! The last time I sent my husband to the store, something similar happened. I had told him I wanted jewelry for my birthday. And he actually bought me something and wrapped it! I was so excited. He bought me a cordless drill. A DRILL. When I asked why, he said I had asked for it! ???? Turns out it has "diamond drill bits" and so me saying "diamonds would be best but obviously you can choose whatever you think I would like " he only heard "diamonds ... obviously - you can choose whatever you - like". Anyway he tried to make it up to me a few days later and bought me a bikini, 3 sizes too big. And when I asked if he thought that was REALLY my size, he said I'd just been baking a lot of cupcakes lately.

Totally not-informed-opinion incoming: The problem isn't the number of justices, the problem is the selection process. The system was supposed to be checks and balances, but obviously if two thirds of the government can agree together to put their finger on the scale when forming the last third, it's not necessarily balanced. It's worked out mostly okay in the past but past results do not guarantee future returns. I'd say that justices should be chosen by other judges; or at least have to be vetted and approved by a plurality of them* before being able to be appointed. *I have no idea how to compose this group of them, if this is all federal judges or a selection or whatever. "Who chooses the choosers?" etc.

Well, this makes sense as well: Interesting true story: A plumber gets called to a house. The resident has pro-Trump signs in his yard. Plumber goes inside to do work in the finished basement. The owner has some pro-Biden stuff displayed. The plumber asks about the discrepancy. The owner says, "Oh the Trump signs are there to keep my house from getting burned down." We both chuckled at that, but it falls into the category of "if you don't laugh, you'll def cry". So if both stories make sense, why is the party name necessary? The reader may fill in their bias, true, but this shouldn't bother you, since your observation (I'm assuming that the area one lives in can dictate what you "need" to display outside to feel safe) still stands. That was your point, wasn't it? If that wasn't your point, I fail to see the relevancy of your interesting true story to the greater post you made.

As a helpful point: when trying to point out issues about "both sides are responsible", you can totally omit the candidates names/parties in stories. For example: Interesting true story: A plumber gets called to a house. The resident has pro-Square signs in his yard. Plumber goes inside to do work in the finished basement. The owner has some pro-Circle stuff displayed. The plumber asks about the discrepancy. The owner says, "Oh the Square signs are there to keep my house from getting burned down." We both chuckled at that, but it falls into the category of "if you don't laugh, you'll def cry". This way, you don't seem to be blaming one side for a hostile environment in the real world, since you were earlier positing both sides are responsible. Which can also conveniently be one-upped with a pro-Circle sign by a pro-Square voter for the same reasons. Or you can ignore this, it's just that this has been a relatively peaceful thread and I'd hate to see it derailed by, what some might consider, an obvious poke at one side of an equation.

Oh! Or dressed as Uncle Sam! With a little hat and beard! The giraffe in my parent's neighborhood is wearing a mask, which is another option.

First off, you don't need to take emails, directions, rules, suggestions, or dress codes from a co-op seriously. No one else does. Like h*ll I'm going to the park in September and NOT be wearing a bikini, and like where do they get off telling me that I can't bring my kids if they have 105 fever and sentient snot?? It's good for their kids' immune system to be exposed to this type of stuff, how ungrateful. Second, no one said how BIG the cupcakes need to be. I personally use thimbles since they are both portion-friendly AND party favors all in one. Bonus: moms will thank you because their kids won't be over-sugared, AND the moms can stay on their diet and eat the cupcakes too.* *BTW, you need to bake 103 cupcakes now, moms are people too, ya'know. I've always gotten around this by hosting a cupcake-making party and I ONLY ask that they show up on time and with their ingredients besides the standard birthday present and $5 for my expenses. Reject any latecomers at the door; we're homeschoolers, so you know you won't have more than 2 people show even if the whole co-op signed up.

Here’s to the pot stirrers Their long handled machinations Reaching in Pulling and probing Pushing and prodding This food for thought. Making the mouth, drooling, Eager to sink teeth into Chew — Tear apart Dissect Annihilate — The fat, The beef we now have, This hearty grouse before us. More spice to the pot Saltier than the tears, welling up, Add fuel to the fire Raising the temperatures, Boiling, bubbling, bursting, Flaring, fomenting, now Foaming at the mouth. Stir it round Serve it up Dish it out Bring it on Tuck it in: Thanks for making us stew. ------ Have really enjoyed the pot stirring threads recently! The "obvious" trouble-making threads have been some the most fun and most polite, lol. Thanks @Terabith and everyone else for the fun 🙂

Someone call the toe truck! (Sorry, now serious) I can't say for sure whether or not it's broken, but it may not be. I had something similar happen to my big toe where the nail hurt, or the flesh around the nail, but not the bone. It would randomly flare up and hurt more over the next few weeks, but I could walk and go about my normal business without issue. If it got stubbed again though man did it hurt. Big toes are more resilient than pinky toes, though. I'd say try exercising in the next few days and see how it feels. If it hurts to flex like you normally do, change routine to something else that is more stationary feet, and recheck again every few days.

This whole thread has not given one good reason to not put the cart away. No excuses. I'm so disappointed by the uncaring and selfish attitude you guys have. Tired after a long day? We all are, you'll survive. Put away the cart. Not feeling well? I'm sorry to hear that. Thankfully you only have to put the cart in the corral, not walk it across Texas. Put away the cart. If you are late for an event, maybe you shouldn't have spent an extra 3 minutes deciding what type of bread. Put away the cart. Sextuplets? You probably even used more than 1 cart, so you definitely don't get a pass. If it's in a suspicious place at night, just angrily push the cart as if you're looking for a fight and no one will bother you. You've got diarrehea? Doubtful, I can't even spell it so I doubt you have it. And your pants are washable anyway. If your kids are vomiting, take them home then return to the store and put the cart away. If Sasquatch comes to town, he can't move that fast. Put away the cart while you're taking out your phone. He'd probably eat you anyway if he saw how rude you were by leaving the cart out. Heart attack? Ask the EMT to cart put away before you will get in the ambulance. Or leave a note on your car for your relative that later picks up your car. Like, seriously, how hard is this?? (too much??)

The best vacuums only work because the earth is flat, because otherwise you never get full suction. Just sayin'.

So, background: Catholic, parents were disparaging of evolutionary theory but didn't outright refute it other than a few swipes about how the Bible was written God who was the only one there at the beginning, so who are you going to trust more? I didn't know YEC was really a thing until after I was an adult, just that some people "didn't believe" in evolution. I still don't understand much about this movement and truthfully have not given it too much thought as I do not have internal conflict looking for resolution on the topic. So my sincere questions/issues with YEC are the common issues on fossils, geological data, and astronomy data. God is not the great Trickster, that is His antithesis. I don't understand why God, who loves us and wants us to be reunited with Him, would put more stumbling blocks on our road. "Testing" is a polite way of saying "tricking", and "tricking" is the polite term for lying, but God is all truth. The great Trickster is someone else entirely who would love for us to be led astray. But think of ALL of the data that would be "tricking" us, and I cannot hold that God would let the trickster mess with His creation to that extent. Second, if all things are created by God, all creation gives glory to Him and points to His Existence. Therefore, science is how we better come to understand Him through our surroundings, it is merely how we understand the world around us and has no motive behind itself. Science was in effect created by Him. So if science is showing us something beyond reasonable doubt, it is showing us something about God or that God intends us to understand to better know Him. FWIW, I think that evolutionary theory does have flaws which aren't discussed or talked about much because it has almost become as God by others, which makes this all more difficult to talk about. I don't think evolution as we understand it now as the be-all and end-all of how things came to be, but it is a portion of the truth. I'm not saying all this in an argumentative way or trying to convince anyone, I've appreciated the YEC people on this thread explaining their reasoning and beliefs, it's enlightening for me and I sincerely want to understand more. I guess I'm wondering how others work around these issues when deciding that YEC is the closest truth we have.

To me, the problem isn't the use of T4L, or K12 or other online programs. There are some good options, @IfIOnly shows they can be used responsibly and to great benefit. The problem isn't Walmart workbooks. The problem isn't even "learning apps" that are the equivalent of sugar with real fruit flavor* (*not from real fruit). The problem is parents that aren't willing to put in any effort into the education side of things. This is where I get all uppity on this topic. I can understand being overwhelmed, I can understand being clueless, I can understand needing a stop gap or an easy in. I can really, really understand not having funds to buy the most-recommended programs. Most of us have been there or close enough to know the landscape. But it's getting past that that's important. And a lot of these parents are looking for permission to NOT go farther than the bare minimum, and not because they CAN'T, but because they don't WANT to. And so, who knows, maybe the education standard the kids get will still be ok or better even than they're getting in this hybrid or virtual world, depending on their district. But to me that doesn't excuse the lack of effort.

POPCORN, POPPPCORN, get your POPPCORNNNN here!!! 🍿🍿🍿

For more data: DS9 did it in 2'08", but he had an issue with his dry erase marker and had to find a new one, it was probably closer to 2' or right under that. DD11 took 2'13". These were surprise runs where I interrupted their drawing time, they weren't warmed up. I'll be interested to see if on Monday if I give it to them (or a similar question) in the middle of math class, if that would change the results. Decimals would probably throw DD11 into a panic, DS9 wouldn't mind.

Today my son received his First Communion. It was the first time in a church since March, and maybe the 4th time out of the house total for my kids since then, and they really enjoyed it.