I would love my profession to be playing baseball, I would love to do that everyday. I could do it everyday, but I couldn't feed my family or myself. Should someone else fund my life. I understand that it is not the fishermans fault, but helping the fisherman for lets say 5 years is all that should be required. If they haven't been able to transition by then, they aren't trying. Maybe they don't want to transition, I guess try to make a living at it then. If the fish don't come back, that is a risk you take.

BP should make this right, and they will. However they should not have to fund all these peoples lives forever. They should not be the new welfare department. At some point in time people should be expected to stand on their own again, maybe in a new profession or a new location. That is life. Think about how your grandparents would have dealt with this. They would have been lucky to get anything, been grateful for what they got, and got on with there life however they had to. They were the type of people would should all aspire to be, not the whining, crying, babies that sue because we spill hot coffee on ourselves.

So blameing any one administration is difficult when many regulations are signed then reapproved across other admins.

I hadto laugh at David Letterman. He said something about the President's speech being on then he paused &stated glad we could put this fiasco behind us now. I feel that way sometimes when they get up and talk.

What do you think should be done to make those people whole, who are suffering financially because of this through absolutely no fault of their own?

You can't prevent everything. People are going to die, bad things are going to happen. At this point it doesn't even matter why or how? We just need to fix it. We may or may not have a clue how to do it. We just have to act on our best guess and work together to fix it. When it is over then we can analyze to why and the how. Don't waste our time pointing fingers at CEOs. They didn't inspect they platform and give themselves a safety award that was the government. It wasn't our idiot in command that inspected it, but it was him preventing some early efforts to deal with the problem.

It is BP's fault that this happened, I don't think they ever denied it. Accidents happen, it wasn't intentional, that is why it is called an accident. They should and will pay for the damage, so why the outrage with them. Where is the outrage at all the people in this country who don't take responsibility. We bail those people out. BP is going to pay for this, like they should. You should applaud that kind of responsibility. Short term this will have an impact, 100 years from now it will be like this never happened.

This is a very horrible tragedy that no one will ever take the blame for so why not quit pointing fingers and group together to save who/what we can while we can still do so.

I suggest those that have a problem with BP boycott their products, volunteer your vacation to the Gulf and help with whatever you can and pray for a faster recovery.

This is what happens when greed overcomes common sense and safety. In this business it should be practice to double check your I's are dotted and your T's are crossed.

BP should be allowed to drill there because 1. It's international waters where the drilling is being done, and 2. they sell the greatest majority of that oil to the United States at the same price any of our oil companies would. It really makes no difference. In all likelihood, were it not BP, it would have been Exxon or Chevron or anyone else. The who and where they're based are all but entirely arbitrary points, and unimportant except in order to know who needs to organize and pay for the cleanup.

You can white-wash this all you want to but the bottom line is this Administration has failed to address the oil that is spilling into the ocean (not Oil Spill). All I here from them is talk with no action or plan.

THE BLAME GAME is always being played to cover up there ability to get the job done.

Other companies?

Sure. Like Halliburton!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30...

If there was any chance their cement work was faulty (and let's face it -- how could there not be) why aren't they involved in the cleanup, or, if they have fewer resources for that, why could they not get involved right now with a bail-out of fishermen and others who depend on the Gulf for their livelihoods?

All I am reading are tired, old talking points from conservative people who did not vote for President Obama, don't think that the government should tell anyone what to do, but want the government to fix the problem. Hypocrisy much?

If you want the government to fix it, then the government has to be able to regulate it and the conservative representatives in Congress, both Representatives, Senators and Presidents have done every thing they can to stop any regulation of any of the issues that we as a country are now dealing with.

I haven't heard one idea of how individuals can help with the problems from this disaster. One easy way is to do everything you can to cut down on your energy use. Call your representatives in Congress, both houses and tell them to get on the stick to get some alternative energy sources going in this country. There are lots of ideas out there, from the engines being produced in Algona that run on ammonia, to the windmills that can make the ammonia for the engines to run, besides having leftover energy to sell to energy companies or use for the producers needs.

If you need more information on this and many more ideas, just look at Francis Thicke's website, he is running for Secretary of Agriculture for the Sate of Iowa and he is looking for and finding ideas right here in Iowa to help get our farmers and other population away from being so dependent on oil products.

The point is that there are alternatives to foreign oil, they are available right here in our state, and we need to be supporting these local companies and solutions for the future.

To spend our time beating on politicians and the President is a waste of time and energy that would be better used to look for the solutions I have talked about, and the many more I am sure are out there.

If President Bush had not gutted the agencies of any means to enforce the rules that where in place, perhaps the oil disaster(I refuse to call it a spill, a spill is a known quantity, this isn't) would not have happened.

People who try to put all the blame for this unfortunate situation in the Gulf on to President Obama, haven't been paying attention. He has been on this since the first day. I don't know what else these people expect him to do, unless they want him to go out in the water and use his "super" powers to plug the hole.

He has been working with every expert, from anywhere they can be found, whether in private or public life to try to find a solution. Instead of talking about what President Obama is not doing, why don't we talk about what we can do to help the people and wildlife in the areas affected?

It is much easier to point to President Obama and say that he is not doing every thing that can be done, than to look to ourselves and say what can I do to help.

Think about it.

Understand that you can't have everything. You can't be an economic super power without fossil fuels. You can't get fossil fuels without risk. If you want to have a scenic view you can't have oil rigs close to shore. If oil rigs are further out to sea you give up safety and security.

In most cases people who make the rules have no clue about the job or situation in which they are making rules. They live a land called Theory, which is often times in another universe than reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-ana

I'm thinking that in many cases, anorexia is not seen as a sickness of distorted body image and quest for perfection; it's gained some normalcy.

This may be a whole other blog, but it's a reality, and it's beyond not snitching -- there are girls (mostly) and young women out there SUPPORTING each other's quests to be impossibly thin, to eat as little as possible, to circumvent the critical eye of parents and others, to make it seem like they're eating and like they've not lost as much weight as they have.

I don't know if Krista was involved with these pro-ana sites, but it is very sad that so many hurting kids can hide in plain sight.

For the set up for kids she has, and the devotion she has into their day, a paid holiday here and there are well deserved.

Looking forward to it Leah, and my Daughter is super excited. Hopefully the razzing over politics can be put aside, as politics are bound to cause debate. :)

I never said being unregistered meant being unqualified. I have many issues with the rules that the state requires of us as it seems they are trying to make it more and more difficult to be an in home provider. It's the whole cradle to grave mentality. Being registered just works for me.

I apologize for insinuating choosing a less expensive daycare meant that parents don't love their children. When I had my own children in daycare we chose to forgo new vehicles, a bigger house, new furniture, TV's, cell phones and cable TV in order to choose a more qualified provider who knew her worth. Therein lies my point, your provider is worth your money as long as she is taking care of your child in the manner that you wish her to. If she asks for you to sign a contract and pay for the daycare premium don't begrudge her that. Simply put, don't ask for a Tiffany's provider at a Wal-Mart price.

I would agree with you on the other requirements!! I love that I can get all of the positives of being with a registered provider and none of the negatives!! Our provider is CPR and first aid certified, she has taken the mandatory reporter classes through the state. She has everything to get registered, but has chosen not to be certified on purpose!

What a horrific experience you had with your nanny!! I don't even know what I would've done in that situation!! Thank God you all came out of it unscathed!

I think the comparison to insurance or a mortgage is faulty as well. Daycare, like private schools or colleges, is a service we choose to use. Yes, you want to get the best possible results from that service, but sometimes its all about the name. I believe that my education at the University of Iowa was wonderful, and I certainly wouldn't have paid more for the more prestigious name of Northwestern to be stamped on my diploma for the same education. Sometimes, you pay for the name or the appearance. Our military-run daycare, while it has its faults, has some very good caretakers that I would not be willing to part with.

I also have to state that when I was choosing daycare for my children, I specifically looked for an individual that was NOT state certified.

That is where I start to part ways. While I have not seen state certification as the major factor in a child care decision, I do like that they are mandatory reporters, have child and infant CPR training, and meet certain safety standards. Other providers, of course might meet and exceed those standards on their own, so I'm not saying only state-certified providers meet that standard.

If you do not have a state certified child care provider, and possibly even if you do, I would strongly suggest a criminal background check -- nationwide if possible.

In 2003 I placed an ad for a provider to come to my home. My husband left early for remodeling jobs. I had to leave around 8 to get to my job and the older kids could not be on their school property until 8:15. I also had an infant for whom I wanted in-home care. So, this provider would care for my infant and drive the older kids to and from school. I also said if she had time to do some light housework, that would be great, but only if baby took a good nap and it was definitely not a priority.

She came with great references from out of town and seemed to have a great deal of experience. The kids liked her okay. I found it odd and a bit annoying that she would start cleaning the table, doing dishes, sweeping the kitchen, etc. as I was trying to pack my lunch and get out the door. I also found a few other things odd, but nothing in and of itself to get excited about. I tried to be a good, considerate employer and didn't want to make a big deal of something that wasn't.

A friend told me she saw the woman at Wal-mart more than once passing my baby off as her own. I questioned my friend (my BEST friend) as to how she could know this for sure. My friend said she hadn't actually heard the words, but she really thought something was fishy.

It turned out not only was the woman claiming my baby was hers, but she was making plans to leave her fiance, go back to the east coast to be with another man and really thought she was going to take my baby and raise it as theirs. As if we would every have stopped searching for our boy. As if people wouldn't think it odd. As if she wouldn't get caught.

Luckily, she abruptly quit after I told her to please let us know if she was going to be running errands with the baby during the day and to please do her cleaning jobs after hours.

An after-the-fact criminal background check showed a child abuse case in a distant state just two years prior, and a current case of domestic violence and fraud against her then-fiance.

We absolutely dodged a bullet by the grace of God and by the courage of her fiance, whose disability checks she was defrauding him out of, for coming forward.

I'm not sure what my deal is with hijacking the discussion and I apologize for any inconvenience it causes. It looks like people are mostly ignoring any non sequitors anyway.

I do agree, Leah, that you are a professional and your service is valuable: to provide a safe, loving, learning, fun environment for the children in your care. I'm happy you're open to diversity, possibly caring for Adam's daughter if that all works out.

Also, why put down parents for choosing a daycare provider because of cost? If I had two daycare providers to choose from that had equal skills in raising my children, chances are likely that I would choose the provider that costs less. Why? By spending less on daycare I can spend more on the other costs that are associated with having children. We all live on a budget Leah - hence the reason Wal-Mart is packed on a daily basis.

Instead of assuming that parents aren't thinking of their children when they choose a cheaper daycare provider, take some time to think about why they may need that cheaper provider. Not everyone can afford the expensive providers, but that does not mean that they don't love or value their children as much as those who do pay the extra money for daycare.

I made the decision to return to work and I have a WONDERFUL daycare provider (who is compensated well for her efforts!!) In her own words, she doesn't do it for the money!! There are months when she spends more than she makes on special projects or outings! (Luckily, she and her husband can afford this).

To each their own. But you are hardly in a position to evaluate the value of MY children on MY life. They are the most important part of my life and it's offensive that you think you can pass judgement on that based on differing opinions.

If you want the benefits of a regular, main-stream job...get a regular, main-stream job and quit your complaining about a life YOU chose!! You don't see me complaining because my daycare lady gets to bask in the sun and play outside while I'm in my office during the day. I guess I could complain because daycare providers get to play outside and get to wear sweatpants!!

Get on with it.

Compare it to college. Yes, in college our "children" are young adults and responsible for their own safety, their own learning and their own decisions. The parallel is that many of the "best" options are not necessarily affordable, and in some cases, just because parents "can" send their children to an expensive school, doesn't mean they should or will.

My cousin lives in the Washington, DC area and makes a quite fine living in engineering. His parents paid for whatever college he and his brothers could manage to stay in for more than a year before being dismissed for poor grades/ majoring in beer and pot. They were certainly spoken to about their excessive partying, but it took three different colleges before the rug was pulled out and my cousin joined the Navy.

Twenty-five years later, my cousin is raising his children. I was shocked to learn he had a budget in paying for their college -- a total over which he would not pay. If his daughter and son want to attend a more expensive college, they will have to find the money themselves, regardless of what the finance office claims is his "expected contribution." Perhaps his own experience educated this decision, but I still find it rather amusingly hypocritical.

On the other hand, it may be a wise decision in the face of exponentially climbing tuition rates.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I can see a parallel between paying for the highest quality daycare and paying for the highest quality college. Not everyone has the circumstances to go to Grinnell or Hamline or St. Olaf or another immensely expensive college in this region.

My cousin's daughter is attending the bargain basement James Madison University in Virginia instead of nearby Georgetown, Duke or UVA because she chooses to stay within her budget and not accumulate college debt.

And not everyone has the circumstances to pay top dollar for daycare, nor can they justify half or more of one parent's paycheck going to daycare expense.

I'm not saying the provider needs to change a thing. I'm just saying everyone sets their own priorities, often based on a larger picture than "my child deserves the best."

You may respond and tell me that's not what you're saying...but if so you should choose your words more carefully. hahaha, hell, you told me that you would have deemed me and you incompatable and turned the business away. BASED ON WHAT??? a comment I made informally on a freakin internet blog??? what about the children....aren't they what is important??

Just stop thinking that if we consider all of our options for day care that we don't love our children enough...cause that's just being close minded and judgemental.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

I overall agree with what you are saying. But at the same time, I only work part time. I would never be able to afford paying for a full-time spot and only using some of it. Affording double pay for daycare during a vacation week (paying regular provider AND backup) might be a stretch, too. Remember, not everybody gets paid vacation! A lot of people are much worse off than we are and couldn't possibly afford what you propose. It's not necessarily because they don't care about their children or are greedy for material possessions. If it's a choice between paying the rent and paying for a daycare spot that they aren't using, what do you expect people to do?

I am SO lucky to have a registered daycare provider that is willing to work with my goofy schedule. I hope that she continues to do daycare until my child is old enough to stay home by herself!

Adam - I do have openings for summer and fall.

I pay close to a thousand dollars a month for daycare....that sucks! so I guess my kids are just as important to me as my mortgage...since its just about as much $$ every month.

You didn't mention how your brother turned out, and it seems as though you are doing OK for yourself.

My feelings and intuition on this blog come from my personal experiences growing up, mashed with how I feel as a parent.

I was one who you could say was sheltered. My mother was very particular about my friends. I went to a private school, etc. What you might refer to as the RIGHT things were done.

I went crazy, put my parents through hell, dropped off the map for months at a time. I went to the lowest lows you can offer, and nearly didn't come back.

Now, I don't blame parenting for MY actions when I was out of the house... but when I read this blog it all came rushing to mind. Appologies for being crass and not giving my full 2 cents and experiences related, sore subject. :)

Your intent is good in my eye, but it's intervening in your kids' lives to a point that rebellion becomes the likely option.

It's funny, my friends growing up that my parents approved of, were the ones that put on a good appearance... and then went crazy when the parents weren't around.

I just think you all are trying to shelter just a hair much. And this might be a newshock, but if you wanted to intervene like this, middle school would have been the time to get into it.

Nowadays kids are exposed to sex drugs and rock and roll, often before reaching highschool.

I'm not saying your intentions are off, I have a daughter that I worry about 10 years from now... and can see where all these thoughts and ideas would seem logical.

Think of it like a garden plant going from inside to outside... if you don't harden it off you're going to kill / shock it.

These are the hardening off years for your kids, it's time to let them get a little air, some sun, and a helping hand when they need it.

Because giving a kid a problem status by meeting their parents or talking with staff sounds great!

You ever think of the flipside?

You're damning these problem kids without even realizing it.

Perhaps the problem kid would pick up some right traits, if they hadn't been blacklisted by a group of parents.

I don't try to disagree all the time, but this one is hogwash.

Johnny -- we don't even have TV at our house. My kids haven't seen MTV, VH1 or a reality show at home since 2007. It's possible, yes, that they've [gasp] caught American Idol or The Real World at a friend's house, but it's not part of their daily lives and they don't express much interest in it. My 17 year old son watches episodes of Justice League and Ben 10 Alien Force with his 7 year old brother on Cartoon Network's website.

Time was, I wouldn't have cared that much if my daughter went off to college and as an adult responsible for herself drank some alcohol or even smoked some pot -- all in an experimental, not addictive, fashion. However, there's so much addiction running through my family (that stopped with me because my parents were also very protective and clear about boundaries) that I don't think we Petersons have the luxury of experimenting a little.

My daughter was 4 when my dad, her beloved grandpa Chuck, passed away from complications of alcoholism. I used age appropriate language, but was clear and honest about explaining to the kids (my son was 7) about how their grandpa died from too much alcohol over the years. Neither of them has ever expressed much interest in drinking, though I have told them they could taste whatever wine or beer we might have at home at various times.

I don't have all the answers, but I think parents supporting each other, rather than suspecting each other based on what we don't know, would help build community in general.

As for the rest of the blog, I can see why you'd want to do this, but I'm not sure if it'll help or not. No one wants to see their children fail in school, drink and do drugs, have sex, ditch curfews, skip class, etc. But I think Adam is right. If you try to stop all of this stuff, they're going to go "buck wild" once they graduate and move out. I've seen it a hundred times.

I graduated from SHS in the decade of the 2000's, and I can say that my friends and I would've become annoyed if our parents did something like this. If our parents tried to intervene more, we'd find different ways of doing the same rebellious stuff, possibly worse than before! I can see the same thing happening in not just my class but the same kids we all knew from the three grades ahead of us to the three grades below us.

That's just my two cents. Maybe all you parents need to do is turn off the MTV, VH1 and horrendous "reality" TV shows and your kids will do just fine.

She's already had brief "relationships" such as they are in middle school with boys -- one of which was okay, and one whom, the way he slides through girls one after the other and creates drama for no reason, I have pegged as having sociopathic tendencies. If I can help other girls to stay away from this one boy, I will.

That's just an example of how there's guidance, and there's intervening when your child has a Mack Truck headed their way.

Keeping the kids in a bubble until they are 18 just makes sure they will go buck wild when they are out of the house on their own.

High school is the natural time to start letting go, and start letting kids see the world... and that means seeing the different types of people, and persuasions. It's a time of guidance, but also of letting go.

Yes, they will make some stupid decisions... trying to prevent every stupid decision is stupid in itself, as they are all learning experiences.

When (a) she happens to be blessed with the ability to be one of the top students in school; and (b) her aspirations to get out of here and experience something new and challenging -- at a very good (and expensive) private college mean she will have to put her maximum effort into earning scholarships, etc.

Even with a "great kid" It's easy to see them crossing a line -- maybe not into drinking, drugs, vandalism, sex, etc., but into poor motivation, sinking grades, and bad attitudes.

I think a gathering could help integrate new parents to the district, open enrolling parents, or those who just have not been as involved in prior years.

How about it -- a freshman orientation for the grownups?

If you don't mind getting back to the topic of the blog.

Also, not to have blog envy, but there is a blog on here about autism, and I'd love to have a discussion going over there about whether autism is real or not.

Much Love!

I'm just as bothered when Christians use Bible verses with the intent to bait nonbelievers into argument. However, you are the one who admitted that you were being snarky, and you were the one who was complaining about others finding him/her offensive. I guess I'm just trying to say that your opinion does not bother me, that you HAVE an opinion does not bother me, the fact that you are expressing it does not bother me, but the WAY you express it and then act like you are the only one being argued with does. There are ways to discuss religion without being snarky, and that goes for everyone.

My job as an Atheist is to tell the "WORLD" about the nonexistence of Jesus and that GOD is make believe.

If the last sentence bothers anyone, all I did was reverse the thoughts of Jeff's line with the appropriate substitutions (now maybe you can understand why his statements offend me).

To all non-believers: GOD LOVES YOU no matter what, and his son, JESUS CHRIST is coming back SOON. EVERY knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is LORD.

Will it be too late for you? That's between you and GOD, not any Church, not any Pastor, not anyone on this blog.

Steve & Jeff: good job! Kudos :)

Bus22: tithing is to the church you attend regularly... Joining a church is great for commitment and it is asked of us... But

tithing is from the heart 10% to where you attend regularly...giving is anything above.

Why are we talking about tithing? How did that conersation get started?

...Ok well anyway, tomorrow is "Love Spencer" let's go do that! :)

Besides, if I want to listen to anyone preach about the Lord, I'll just listen to George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord", but for now, I'll stick with his first song with the Beatles, "Don't Bother Me".

John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)

"I Am The Way, The Truth, And The Life, Nobody Comes To The Father Except Through Me"

(John.14:6)

Doesn't say ANYTHING about belonging to ANY Church.

perhaps both sides of God needs this. those of us believers need to remember the leap of faith and those who are not believers need to respect the leap of faith.

i looked at these comments expecting to see positive discussion. this is a shameful look at how respectable people treat each other.

What I don't believe is that is if there is a god, he or she or it only lets you into the pearly white gates if you are a follower of the correct religion. I would hope that's based on the quality of the person.

I'm not anti religion, some religions may very well be true... I'm just not about picking one. So I guess I wouldn't be a true atheist.

Jeff, if some guy named Jesus died 2000 years ago, that has nothing to do with believing in god. Atheists can believe that there was someone named Jesus that died at some point in the past without believing that he was the son of god, or that there is even a god (I personally do not believe that such a person existed in history)

If Jesus existed 2000 years ago, as your Bumper Sticker implies, then How can you deny there is a GOD?

I'm an atheist, but you don't see my "Jesus died 2000 years ago, get over it" bumper sticker.

There's always 2 sides to the offensive coin.

Also there is another person with my name in the area, so hopefully no bricks end up in his window.

Really there's no reason to be anonymous in spencer, unless you are sputtering such crap that even you can't live with it. While people may disagree, I would hope that the realization that not all people think the same stops things from escalating to any sort of physical confrontation.

The debates we have here are healthy most of the time, it keeps everyone on their toes.... and it shows the diversity between people.

I agree, time for a new blog. I think it would be great if the reporter had a forum area... so things could get off track and still be organized... somewhat.

Unfortunately, I would not find such an incident surprising, nor would I find it surprising if LE didn't find it necessary to spend a lot of time rooting out the culprits.

I was raised a strong Christian, I spent my late teens through mid-thirties as a nominal Christian with a lot of very hard questions due to a series of tough life events, and it took an, well, act of God, literally a miracle, to make me as passionate about my faith as I am today.

While some people, the clapping type or not, might say it's our Christian duty to help save others and lead them to Christ, I believe it is an act of greater love to respect them while they are on their journey.

I don't mean to single out iowaskeptic as he or she is one of many, but I believe people have reasons for being on the road they're on and those who are not believers now most likely will come and clap in our churches as believers only through the road of their own experience.

I'm also sorry that I don't own a phonebook...it would just be a waste of paper and space in my house. So, I had to resort to Facebook. Maybe you should update your information so I don't make a dork out of myself.

Anyways, I think it's about time for Leah to write a new blog so we can start fresh on that one!

Raised in California, moved out here 8 years ago or so.

No need to snoop, I'm pretty open.

Oh how I wish I could have commented below Randy's prostate exam writeup.

Thanks for the response, Leah. I'm glad you're courageous about your beliefs. Keep it up. I guess it's just not for me.