The only people inspiring fear among the public are the ones calling out bomb squads to blow things up while they tell people how dangerous every bush and soda can is. Everybody must be afraid all the time or they might just realize how ridiculous they are behaving.

I believe the main point that might lead to good outcomes for homeschoolers is that there is no way you are getting as good of a student to teacher ratio in a classroom. 30-1 or more is what some of the schools in the city near me have now. Even in a good school you will still be looking at 12-1 at the best. 1-1 or 2-1 is such a huge difference that it makes up for the lack of experience on the part of the parent in teaching. Plus the parent knows the child and how to get them to pay attention to the material they should be learning. You also have the option of holding off on a topic if they aren't ready to grasp that concept yet. In class everyone must progress together. Likewise, you can go deeper into a topic if it is something they find interesting.

I do think eventually the material will get beyond our ability to teach it effectively. Sometime before high school we are planning on transitioning our children to public school. But to start I see homeschooling as a huge benefit, even if it is extra work for us.

In general the public school system discourages any type of thinking on the part of the student. If you think differently than the teacher you get in trouble. It is basically a power struggle with the teacher telling the student that they must respect their authority! Of course there are good teachers out there also, but the school system churns out people who are taught not to think for themselves because that will not get you the good grades that memorizing and regurgitating will get you. Just look at the cases of kids like the one in the news earlier in the week who was suspended for bringing an encyclopedia of knowledge to school. Way too disturbing of class when you have a kid that loves learning like that!

That's an easy game then. Just don't ever eat anything and the other team will never get any points at all. Of course you end up dead in the end, but that doesn't matter, does it!

The food pyramid is the exact same ratio of nutrients that farmers give their cattle to fatten them up. They recommend way too many carbs and grains in the food pyramid.

Right! Because supporting the Pope's cousin is such a great ethical thing to do!

No, it is teaching the kid that you must respect their authority! Many people in positions of power, in the school system and elsewhere in society, want people to do what they tell them to without any thinking or delay. If you have an imagination and don't want to be the perfect little drone that society wants to make you into then you will run into a lot of trouble like this. This is the primary reason my wife and I have decided to homeschool.

I like your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

The tired light theory is an interesting one, and I can see how it can fit well with observations. I like the tired light because it does seem to make the expanding universe less certain. Even the Big Bang becomes questionable and I see the CMBR as a possible detection of light that has given up the last of it's energy due to traveling too far.

I was more thinking about red-shifting accumulating due to the distance from the object. They always mention that further objects are more red-shifted due to them moving away from us faster. But if the red-shift accumulates over the distance due to more and more red-shifting coming from the expansion of space itself, then that doesn't tell us speed of the distant object, just the distance. I guess perhaps I always misunderstood what they meant by the red-shift being due to the objects traveling away from us. It's kind of a subtle difference perhaps. Does the red-shift happen at the point of departure of the object that is moving away from us due to the expansion, or does the red-shift happen during the journey from source to destination. Now that I write it out the first scenario makes little sense as different destinations would need to see different red-shifting amounts. I guess it would be: a) red-shift is due to the difference in speed, or b) red-shift is due to space stretching out underneath the light waves as the travel. Obviously the speed would have an additional effect or you could never see something blue-shifted due to it's actual motion relative to us.

Upon reading this article and thinking about the red-shift I had a new thought that I was wondering about. If the space is expanding while the light is travelling through it, what says that the red-shift is from the movement of the original object and not the movement of expanding space underneath the light. Water waves would be shifted with both a moving wave generator and a stationary wave generator in a stream. The waves upstream would be compressed while the waves downstream would be lengthened. This would lead to greater red-shifts for further objects not because they are travelling faster away from us, but because they have spent more time in expanding space. Do we know that the expansion of space does not effect a change in the frequency of EM radiation?

The courts have already ruled that the police do not have any obligation to assist.

Except the dual analog sticks are always pushed to their limits. What's the point of analog if it almost impossible to use them gently. Walking on a game system controller is difficult. It is easier to just tap the stick full for a brief moment rather than try to edge it up until your guy starts walking, but oops, you moved it too far and you just ran off the cliff!

Sure! Once all the oil in the ground has been used up, then we will have to get it from the whales again.

If simple communication is not language, then why is it called body language?!

I think you have mutations and cancer confused. If cancer was a unavoidable fact then we would not have creatures like the naked mole rat that does not EVER

get cancer. I remember hearing that sharks don't get cancer either, but they are not being used in labs to study why they don't get cancer like the naked mole rat is, so it is perhaps less of a scientific fact and more conjecture.