Anyone know a good divorce lawyer?

[Anonymous]

I don’t think you were demeaning being a stay at home parent, although I think some posters do. I fully agree with you that more important than a house, take time with the kids. It doesn’t always mean doing something actively with them. Just being around them has it rewards too for both the parent and child.

[davelj]

As sort of a post script, I want to make one more observation regarding children. (Note: this has nothing to do with the degree to which Marion may or may not be a prostitute.)

I am not an environmentalist. I drive an SUV. I don’t recycle. I don’t care too much about global warming, regardless of whether its man-made or part of the Earth’s weather cycle, or some combination of both. You get the picture. Although I do support that subset of EPA regulations that attempts to get corporations to pollute less. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the whole “tragedy of the commons” idea.

Having said all that, one thing of which I’m virtually certain is that having a child is one of the single most destructive things that a person (or, “couple,” I suppose I should say) can do to the planet. Having two is geometrically worse, three geometrically worse than that, etc. If you think in financial terms about the “present value” – so to speak – of the pollution and destruction that each child and their children and their children’s children, etc. etc. causes to the environment, it’s unbelievable. Just think about the cumulative effect of the pollution (cars, smog, plastics consumed, etc.) of all of that child’s descendants. It’s amazing really.

Anyhow, I have nothing against people having kids. I actually like some of my friends’ kids. I don’t have to take care of them, after all. And I don’t care if people’s desire to procreate ultimately plays a big role in rendering the Earth unfit for human habitation. (Wouldn’t that be ironic?) The species at the top of the food chain during a random epoch on a distant planet in the Milky Way galaxy isn’t really all that important in the whole scheme of things, after all. (Granted, our evolutionary biology often betrays this simple observation.) Nevertheless, if you do care one iota about the environment, one thing you can do is not have children. It would be a small service to the rest of us.

I read somewhere recently that if every family on the planet limited themselves to one child, then the population of the world would fall to around 3 billion (or so) by the end of this century and most of our environmental issues, including global warming (assuming it’s man-made) would dissipate. I haven’t worked through the math, I’m just repeating what I read. But the general idea seems plausible.

Again, I ain’t no tree hugger. But if you have those tendencies, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be having children (or one at the most). Otherwise, you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Just something to think about.

(Note: Al and Tipper Gore have four kids. And fly around in private planes. And… you get the picture. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Shit, without even trying, the environmental damage I’ve done to the Earth is just a teeny tiny fraction of those two jibberjabbering asshats.)

Now, I gotta go find some chemicals to dump in the sewer.

[davelj]

As sort of a post script, I want to make one more observation regarding children. (Note: this has nothing to do with the degree to which Marion may or may not be a prostitute.)

I am not an environmentalist. I drive an SUV. I don’t recycle. I don’t care too much about global warming, regardless of whether its man-made or part of the Earth’s weather cycle, or some combination of both. You get the picture. Although I do support that subset of EPA regulations that attempts to get corporations to pollute less. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the whole “tragedy of the commons” idea.

Having said all that, one thing of which I’m virtually certain is that having a child is one of the single most destructive things that a person (or, “couple,” I suppose I should say) can do to the planet. Having two is geometrically worse, three geometrically worse than that, etc. If you think in financial terms about the “present value” – so to speak – of the pollution and destruction that each child and their children and their children’s children, etc. etc. causes to the environment, it’s unbelievable. Just think about the cumulative effect of the pollution (cars, smog, plastics consumed, etc.) of all of that child’s descendants. It’s amazing really.

Anyhow, I have nothing against people having kids. I actually like some of my friends’ kids. I don’t have to take care of them, after all. And I don’t care if people’s desire to procreate ultimately plays a big role in rendering the Earth unfit for human habitation. (Wouldn’t that be ironic?) The species at the top of the food chain during a random epoch on a distant planet in the Milky Way galaxy isn’t really all that important in the whole scheme of things, after all. (Granted, our evolutionary biology often betrays this simple observation.) Nevertheless, if you do care one iota about the environment, one thing you can do is not have children. It would be a small service to the rest of us.

I read somewhere recently that if every family on the planet limited themselves to one child, then the population of the world would fall to around 3 billion (or so) by the end of this century and most of our environmental issues, including global warming (assuming it’s man-made) would dissipate. I haven’t worked through the math, I’m just repeating what I read. But the general idea seems plausible.

Again, I ain’t no tree hugger. But if you have those tendencies, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be having children (or one at the most). Otherwise, you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Just something to think about.

(Note: Al and Tipper Gore have four kids. And fly around in private planes. And… you get the picture. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Shit, without even trying, the environmental damage I’ve done to the Earth is just a teeny tiny fraction of those two jibberjabbering asshats.)

Now, I gotta go find some chemicals to dump in the sewer.

[davelj]

As sort of a post script, I want to make one more observation regarding children. (Note: this has nothing to do with the degree to which Marion may or may not be a prostitute.)

I am not an environmentalist. I drive an SUV. I don’t recycle. I don’t care too much about global warming, regardless of whether its man-made or part of the Earth’s weather cycle, or some combination of both. You get the picture. Although I do support that subset of EPA regulations that attempts to get corporations to pollute less. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the whole “tragedy of the commons” idea.

Having said all that, one thing of which I’m virtually certain is that having a child is one of the single most destructive things that a person (or, “couple,” I suppose I should say) can do to the planet. Having two is geometrically worse, three geometrically worse than that, etc. If you think in financial terms about the “present value” – so to speak – of the pollution and destruction that each child and their children and their children’s children, etc. etc. causes to the environment, it’s unbelievable. Just think about the cumulative effect of the pollution (cars, smog, plastics consumed, etc.) of all of that child’s descendants. It’s amazing really.

Anyhow, I have nothing against people having kids. I actually like some of my friends’ kids. I don’t have to take care of them, after all. And I don’t care if people’s desire to procreate ultimately plays a big role in rendering the Earth unfit for human habitation. (Wouldn’t that be ironic?) The species at the top of the food chain during a random epoch on a distant planet in the Milky Way galaxy isn’t really all that important in the whole scheme of things, after all. (Granted, our evolutionary biology often betrays this simple observation.) Nevertheless, if you do care one iota about the environment, one thing you can do is not have children. It would be a small service to the rest of us.

I read somewhere recently that if every family on the planet limited themselves to one child, then the population of the world would fall to around 3 billion (or so) by the end of this century and most of our environmental issues, including global warming (assuming it’s man-made) would dissipate. I haven’t worked through the math, I’m just repeating what I read. But the general idea seems plausible.

Again, I ain’t no tree hugger. But if you have those tendencies, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be having children (or one at the most). Otherwise, you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Just something to think about.

(Note: Al and Tipper Gore have four kids. And fly around in private planes. And… you get the picture. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Shit, without even trying, the environmental damage I’ve done to the Earth is just a teeny tiny fraction of those two jibberjabbering asshats.)

Now, I gotta go find some chemicals to dump in the sewer.

[davelj]

As sort of a post script, I want to make one more observation regarding children. (Note: this has nothing to do with the degree to which Marion may or may not be a prostitute.)

I am not an environmentalist. I drive an SUV. I don’t recycle. I don’t care too much about global warming, regardless of whether its man-made or part of the Earth’s weather cycle, or some combination of both. You get the picture. Although I do support that subset of EPA regulations that attempts to get corporations to pollute less. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the whole “tragedy of the commons” idea.

Having said all that, one thing of which I’m virtually certain is that having a child is one of the single most destructive things that a person (or, “couple,” I suppose I should say) can do to the planet. Having two is geometrically worse, three geometrically worse than that, etc. If you think in financial terms about the “present value” – so to speak – of the pollution and destruction that each child and their children and their children’s children, etc. etc. causes to the environment, it’s unbelievable. Just think about the cumulative effect of the pollution (cars, smog, plastics consumed, etc.) of all of that child’s descendants. It’s amazing really.

Anyhow, I have nothing against people having kids. I actually like some of my friends’ kids. I don’t have to take care of them, after all. And I don’t care if people’s desire to procreate ultimately plays a big role in rendering the Earth unfit for human habitation. (Wouldn’t that be ironic?) The species at the top of the food chain during a random epoch on a distant planet in the Milky Way galaxy isn’t really all that important in the whole scheme of things, after all. (Granted, our evolutionary biology often betrays this simple observation.) Nevertheless, if you do care one iota about the environment, one thing you can do is not have children. It would be a small service to the rest of us.

I read somewhere recently that if every family on the planet limited themselves to one child, then the population of the world would fall to around 3 billion (or so) by the end of this century and most of our environmental issues, including global warming (assuming it’s man-made) would dissipate. I haven’t worked through the math, I’m just repeating what I read. But the general idea seems plausible.

Again, I ain’t no tree hugger. But if you have those tendencies, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be having children (or one at the most). Otherwise, you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Just something to think about.

(Note: Al and Tipper Gore have four kids. And fly around in private planes. And… you get the picture. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Shit, without even trying, the environmental damage I’ve done to the Earth is just a teeny tiny fraction of those two jibberjabbering asshats.)

Now, I gotta go find some chemicals to dump in the sewer.

[davelj]

As sort of a post script, I want to make one more observation regarding children. (Note: this has nothing to do with the degree to which Marion may or may not be a prostitute.)

I am not an environmentalist. I drive an SUV. I don’t recycle. I don’t care too much about global warming, regardless of whether its man-made or part of the Earth’s weather cycle, or some combination of both. You get the picture. Although I do support that subset of EPA regulations that attempts to get corporations to pollute less. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the whole “tragedy of the commons” idea.

Having said all that, one thing of which I’m virtually certain is that having a child is one of the single most destructive things that a person (or, “couple,” I suppose I should say) can do to the planet. Having two is geometrically worse, three geometrically worse than that, etc. If you think in financial terms about the “present value” – so to speak – of the pollution and destruction that each child and their children and their children’s children, etc. etc. causes to the environment, it’s unbelievable. Just think about the cumulative effect of the pollution (cars, smog, plastics consumed, etc.) of all of that child’s descendants. It’s amazing really.

Anyhow, I have nothing against people having kids. I actually like some of my friends’ kids. I don’t have to take care of them, after all. And I don’t care if people’s desire to procreate ultimately plays a big role in rendering the Earth unfit for human habitation. (Wouldn’t that be ironic?) The species at the top of the food chain during a random epoch on a distant planet in the Milky Way galaxy isn’t really all that important in the whole scheme of things, after all. (Granted, our evolutionary biology often betrays this simple observation.) Nevertheless, if you do care one iota about the environment, one thing you can do is not have children. It would be a small service to the rest of us.

I read somewhere recently that if every family on the planet limited themselves to one child, then the population of the world would fall to around 3 billion (or so) by the end of this century and most of our environmental issues, including global warming (assuming it’s man-made) would dissipate. I haven’t worked through the math, I’m just repeating what I read. But the general idea seems plausible.

Again, I ain’t no tree hugger. But if you have those tendencies, then you sure as hell shouldn’t be having children (or one at the most). Otherwise, you’re one hell of a hypocrite. Just something to think about.

(Note: Al and Tipper Gore have four kids. And fly around in private planes. And… you get the picture. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Shit, without even trying, the environmental damage I’ve done to the Earth is just a teeny tiny fraction of those two jibberjabbering asshats.)

Now, I gotta go find some chemicals to dump in the sewer.

[NotCranky]

I don’t think you were demeaning being a stay at home parent, although I think some posters do. I fully agree with you that more important than a house, take time with the kids. It doesn’t always mean doing something actively with them. Just being around them has it rewards too for both the parent and child.

My two boys just spent the whole day together. They spend everyday together. If they were in child care not only would they not be with a parent, in this case the father. They wouldn’t have even been together in many types of child care. BTW in today’s age cooking and cleaning are the smallest part of being at home with kids. For example we don’t milk cows and churn butter or drag them down to the river to wash clothes. My wife and I pretty much share all loads except she does 75% of the cooking and I do 100% of outdoor and repair stuff. We both work part time out of the house and part time in. It is very hard to be this flexible especially since we both have the desire to participate in a more unrestricted fashion in work or leisure and these schedules make that really hard but it is only for a few more years when the guys re all in school. I agree with those who say the rewards are greater than the sacrifices.

No interests in doing carbon footprint analysis on a per child basis. What is the level of destruction that has occured to life, other than, human here so far anyway that is completely un related to carbon gases? I think it is pretty severe. Nature will rule the day and put this place back in her perspective. It isn’t like it was a great place before the greenhouse gas level got up. For the most part we have been trying to dominate oppress and kill each other anyway. I don’t see a catastrophic event imposed by nature as any worse. Alternate scenario we humans evolve as extraterrestrials via science and technology. Maybe the future holds a little bit of multiple scenarios.

Mom is home! She brought boy three home from school and some strawberries from the fruit stand. It’s a beautiful day. I think I’ll fill-up the kiddie pool and watch them laugh and play.

I have just been informed we are having a “celebrating party!” a “real celebrating party!” The funny and wonderful thing is that there is no occasion.

[NotCranky]

I don’t think you were demeaning being a stay at home parent, although I think some posters do. I fully agree with you that more important than a house, take time with the kids. It doesn’t always mean doing something actively with them. Just being around them has it rewards too for both the parent and child.

My two boys just spent the whole day together. They spend everyday together. If they were in child care not only would they not be with a parent, in this case the father. They wouldn’t have even been together in many types of child care. BTW in today’s age cooking and cleaning are the smallest part of being at home with kids. For example we don’t milk cows and churn butter or drag them down to the river to wash clothes. My wife and I pretty much share all loads except she does 75% of the cooking and I do 100% of outdoor and repair stuff. We both work part time out of the house and part time in. It is very hard to be this flexible especially since we both have the desire to participate in a more unrestricted fashion in work or leisure and these schedules make that really hard but it is only for a few more years when the guys re all in school. I agree with those who say the rewards are greater than the sacrifices.

No interests in doing carbon footprint analysis on a per child basis. What is the level of destruction that has occured to life, other than, human here so far anyway that is completely un related to carbon gases? I think it is pretty severe. Nature will rule the day and put this place back in her perspective. It isn’t like it was a great place before the greenhouse gas level got up. For the most part we have been trying to dominate oppress and kill each other anyway. I don’t see a catastrophic event imposed by nature as any worse. Alternate scenario we humans evolve as extraterrestrials via science and technology. Maybe the future holds a little bit of multiple scenarios.

Mom is home! She brought boy three home from school and some strawberries from the fruit stand. It’s a beautiful day. I think I’ll fill-up the kiddie pool and watch them laugh and play.

I have just been informed we are having a “celebrating party!” a “real celebrating party!” The funny and wonderful thing is that there is no occasion.

[NotCranky]

I don’t think you were demeaning being a stay at home parent, although I think some posters do. I fully agree with you that more important than a house, take time with the kids. It doesn’t always mean doing something actively with them. Just being around them has it rewards too for both the parent and child.

My two boys just spent the whole day together. They spend everyday together. If they were in child care not only would they not be with a parent, in this case the father. They wouldn’t have even been together in many types of child care. BTW in today’s age cooking and cleaning are the smallest part of being at home with kids. For example we don’t milk cows and churn butter or drag them down to the river to wash clothes. My wife and I pretty much share all loads except she does 75% of the cooking and I do 100% of outdoor and repair stuff. We both work part time out of the house and part time in. It is very hard to be this flexible especially since we both have the desire to participate in a more unrestricted fashion in work or leisure and these schedules make that really hard but it is only for a few more years when the guys re all in school. I agree with those who say the rewards are greater than the sacrifices.

No interests in doing carbon footprint analysis on a per child basis. What is the level of destruction that has occured to life, other than, human here so far anyway that is completely un related to carbon gases? I think it is pretty severe. Nature will rule the day and put this place back in her perspective. It isn’t like it was a great place before the greenhouse gas level got up. For the most part we have been trying to dominate oppress and kill each other anyway. I don’t see a catastrophic event imposed by nature as any worse. Alternate scenario we humans evolve as extraterrestrials via science and technology. Maybe the future holds a little bit of multiple scenarios.

Mom is home! She brought boy three home from school and some strawberries from the fruit stand. It’s a beautiful day. I think I’ll fill-up the kiddie pool and watch them laugh and play.

I have just been informed we are having a “celebrating party!” a “real celebrating party!” The funny and wonderful thing is that there is no occasion.

[NotCranky]

I don’t think you were demeaning being a stay at home parent, although I think some posters do. I fully agree with you that more important than a house, take time with the kids. It doesn’t always mean doing something actively with them. Just being around them has it rewards too for both the parent and child.

My two boys just spent the whole day together. They spend everyday together. If they were in child care not only would they not be with a parent, in this case the father. They wouldn’t have even been together in many types of child care. BTW in today’s age cooking and cleaning are the smallest part of being at home with kids. For example we don’t milk cows and churn butter or drag them down to the river to wash clothes. My wife and I pretty much share all loads except she does 75% of the cooking and I do 100% of outdoor and repair stuff. We both work part time out of the house and part time in. It is very hard to be this flexible especially since we both have the desire to participate in a more unrestricted fashion in work or leisure and these schedules make that really hard but it is only for a few more years when the guys re all in school. I agree with those who say the rewards are greater than the sacrifices.

No interests in doing carbon footprint analysis on a per child basis. What is the level of destruction that has occured to life, other than, human here so far anyway that is completely un related to carbon gases? I think it is pretty severe. Nature will rule the day and put this place back in her perspective. It isn’t like it was a great place before the greenhouse gas level got up. For the most part we have been trying to dominate oppress and kill each other anyway. I don’t see a catastrophic event imposed by nature as any worse. Alternate scenario we humans evolve as extraterrestrials via science and technology. Maybe the future holds a little bit of multiple scenarios.

Mom is home! She brought boy three home from school and some strawberries from the fruit stand. It’s a beautiful day. I think I’ll fill-up the kiddie pool and watch them laugh and play.

I have just been informed we are having a “celebrating party!” a “real celebrating party!” The funny and wonderful thing is that there is no occasion.

[NotCranky]

I don’t think you were demeaning being a stay at home parent, although I think some posters do. I fully agree with you that more important than a house, take time with the kids. It doesn’t always mean doing something actively with them. Just being around them has it rewards too for both the parent and child.

My two boys just spent the whole day together. They spend everyday together. If they were in child care not only would they not be with a parent, in this case the father. They wouldn’t have even been together in many types of child care. BTW in today’s age cooking and cleaning are the smallest part of being at home with kids. For example we don’t milk cows and churn butter or drag them down to the river to wash clothes. My wife and I pretty much share all loads except she does 75% of the cooking and I do 100% of outdoor and repair stuff. We both work part time out of the house and part time in. It is very hard to be this flexible especially since we both have the desire to participate in a more unrestricted fashion in work or leisure and these schedules make that really hard but it is only for a few more years when the guys re all in school. I agree with those who say the rewards are greater than the sacrifices.

No interests in doing carbon footprint analysis on a per child basis. What is the level of destruction that has occured to life, other than, human here so far anyway that is completely un related to carbon gases? I think it is pretty severe. Nature will rule the day and put this place back in her perspective. It isn’t like it was a great place before the greenhouse gas level got up. For the most part we have been trying to dominate oppress and kill each other anyway. I don’t see a catastrophic event imposed by nature as any worse. Alternate scenario we humans evolve as extraterrestrials via science and technology. Maybe the future holds a little bit of multiple scenarios.

Mom is home! She brought boy three home from school and some strawberries from the fruit stand. It’s a beautiful day. I think I’ll fill-up the kiddie pool and watch them laugh and play.

I have just been informed we are having a “celebrating party!” a “real celebrating party!” The funny and wonderful thing is that there is no occasion.

[waitingpatiently]

I think that it is wonderful that some of you know that you are not the “parenting type” and won’t be having children.

I understand that everyone has a different definition of a good parent. But the day we found out we were pregnant was the day that I put “ME” on the back burner. I quit my job and became mom. I will return to work one day…maybe part-time. But until my children are out of my house my “career” is to raise kind, considerate and healthy children. Am I bored, who has time with 2 kids?

My personal opinion, which I know will not set well with this board is…I think that most people who work full-time when they have children are selfish. God-forbid you have to change your lifestyle or can’t do what you want..why did you have kids? And for the excuse that you are bored, introduce your children to your passion (art, literature, sports, fishing, ceramics, flowers, whatever it maybe). The most important gift that you can give your child is your TIME.

Once again it’s only an opinion and I understand that there are some different situations.

Back to my Leave it to Beaver World. I need to get all dolled up, the kids cleaned up, house picked up, and a homemade dinner on the table so that when my husband gets home he knows how appreciative I am of him.

[waitingpatiently]

I think that it is wonderful that some of you know that you are not the “parenting type” and won’t be having children.

I understand that everyone has a different definition of a good parent. But the day we found out we were pregnant was the day that I put “ME” on the back burner. I quit my job and became mom. I will return to work one day…maybe part-time. But until my children are out of my house my “career” is to raise kind, considerate and healthy children. Am I bored, who has time with 2 kids?

My personal opinion, which I know will not set well with this board is…I think that most people who work full-time when they have children are selfish. God-forbid you have to change your lifestyle or can’t do what you want..why did you have kids? And for the excuse that you are bored, introduce your children to your passion (art, literature, sports, fishing, ceramics, flowers, whatever it maybe). The most important gift that you can give your child is your TIME.

Once again it’s only an opinion and I understand that there are some different situations.

Back to my Leave it to Beaver World. I need to get all dolled up, the kids cleaned up, house picked up, and a homemade dinner on the table so that when my husband gets home he knows how appreciative I am of him.

[waitingpatiently]

I think that it is wonderful that some of you know that you are not the “parenting type” and won’t be having children.

I understand that everyone has a different definition of a good parent. But the day we found out we were pregnant was the day that I put “ME” on the back burner. I quit my job and became mom. I will return to work one day…maybe part-time. But until my children are out of my house my “career” is to raise kind, considerate and healthy children. Am I bored, who has time with 2 kids?

My personal opinion, which I know will not set well with this board is…I think that most people who work full-time when they have children are selfish. God-forbid you have to change your lifestyle or can’t do what you want..why did you have kids? And for the excuse that you are bored, introduce your children to your passion (art, literature, sports, fishing, ceramics, flowers, whatever it maybe). The most important gift that you can give your child is your TIME.

Once again it’s only an opinion and I understand that there are some different situations.

Back to my Leave it to Beaver World. I need to get all dolled up, the kids cleaned up, house picked up, and a homemade dinner on the table so that when my husband gets home he knows how appreciative I am of him.

[waitingpatiently]

I think that it is wonderful that some of you know that you are not the “parenting type” and won’t be having children.

I understand that everyone has a different definition of a good parent. But the day we found out we were pregnant was the day that I put “ME” on the back burner. I quit my job and became mom. I will return to work one day…maybe part-time. But until my children are out of my house my “career” is to raise kind, considerate and healthy children. Am I bored, who has time with 2 kids?

My personal opinion, which I know will not set well with this board is…I think that most people who work full-time when they have children are selfish. God-forbid you have to change your lifestyle or can’t do what you want..why did you have kids? And for the excuse that you are bored, introduce your children to your passion (art, literature, sports, fishing, ceramics, flowers, whatever it maybe). The most important gift that you can give your child is your TIME.

Once again it’s only an opinion and I understand that there are some different situations.

Back to my Leave it to Beaver World. I need to get all dolled up, the kids cleaned up, house picked up, and a homemade dinner on the table so that when my husband gets home he knows how appreciative I am of him.

[Author]

Posts