>be cool ride your bike

>
My ride.

I am working on being cool. I have started riding my bike to work again. I do it for several reasons:

  1. I save money on gas, plus my car desperately needs some repairs and I don’t want to spend any money on it right now. Yes, I’m cheap.
  2. Cross training – I have started running and I want to include some additional ‘training’ that is low impact. No, I’m not a professional athlete.
  3. There is nothing quite like bike riding – I know God is good because he gave us bicycles, as well as beer, cheese, mountains, the ocean, and a lot of other things, but you can’t ride a cheese to work – generally.
  4. Biking is better for the world than driving cars. My goal is to become an almost total biking person and cut car use to as much of a minimum as possible. I don’t have really strong emotions about this, but I’ve heard it’s what cool people are doing these days.

It takes me about 30 minutes to get to work, and that means 30 minutes to get home as well. So that’s an hour of cardio each day along with whatever additional workout I do. Currently I have two rideable bikes to choose from. One is an older but totally rad full-suspension mountain bike that needs a lot of TLC. It is rather worn out and could use an overhaul, which I don’t want to pay for. (Remember I’m cheap.) The other bike is a fixed gear track bike that I modified with straight bars and a front brake (track bikes come with no brakes). The fixed gear also gives me a better workout for two reasons:

  1. It cannot coast. In other words, a fixed gear bike is just that, the gearing is fixed, so if the bike moves forward the pedals go round. There is no break in the action unless I come to a complete stop. This “feature” makes riding the bike somewhat tricky, but one gets used to it.
  2. There is only one gear. This means that much of the time the gear is not exactly the right gear for the situation. It’s either too high for going up hills or to low for going down, and the rest of the time it’s just a little off. So one has to work harder because one cannot shift to a more comfortable gear.

I prefer the fixed gear over the mountain bike because it gives me a better workout, is faster, and is simpler (no shifting). Plus, a fixed gear is cooler – and, as you know, I’m all about being cool.


The drive train. As simple as it gets.


One sprocket in the back. No coasting.

But… there are cars and the people who “drive” them that I still have to deal with. The other day a woman (probably hasn’t ridden a bike since she was a little girl) in her white Lexus SUV (probably never actually been on a dirt road) was waiting to pull out into traffic. She was on her cell phone. She looked right at me and still pulled out. I had to hit my brakes to avoid hitting her. No wonder they say talking on a cell phone while driving is equivalent to being over the legal alcohol limit. But I also think she, like so many people who never ride bikes, have no idea how fast a bike goes, or truly how dangerous it is for a cyclist to tangle with a car. I also think many drivers don’t view (or at least act as though they don’t view) cyclists as legitimate users of the road. Once, years ago, I was pushed off a road into a ditch by a fifth wheel trailer when the truck driver decided to pull far to the right in order to make a sharp left hand turn. I have to say it was surprising to feel the side of the trailer bump up against my left shoulder and just push me off the road. The driver had seen me because he had just passed me. I think everyone should be required to ride a bike for severals days through their city before they are given their driver’s license.

Although I will probably never participate in a naked bike ride, I totally sympathize with the message. I will not yet give up my car. But I want to ride more, drive less, and encourage other to do the same. As you know, it’s cooler to ride a bike – even when you’re not naked. Be cool.

This guy is super cool:

I wish I could be that cool.

>le Tour de France, Drugs, and Lance Armstrong

>

“At breakfast. UCI antidoping inspectors just walked in. Blood control for Levi, klodi, alberto, and myself. This is a good thing..”

~ Tweet from Lance Armstrong (on 7/10) before the first
major mountain stage of the 2009 Tour de France


Image by Max Whittake/Reuters

I am a fan of pro cycling and especially the Tour de France. I’ve been a TDF fan since around 1984 when Greg LeMond came in third overall. Whenever I talk to others about the tour they always bring up doping. The most common kind of comment is something like “all those guys dope, everyone knows that.” If you know the history of the Tour de France, and endurance sports in general, then you know that statement has a lot of truth. (See the List of doping cases in cycling.) And yet, where are we today? Do all the cyclists dope like we tend to think? When others say they all dope, or more specifically, “You know Lance dopes, How else could he have won some many tours,” I am inclined to say show me the proof.

Testing for doping in cycling has been around for fifty years. The process, though never perfect, has been put to the test many times and is constantly being improved. A lot of pressure is on the testers because they may disqualify a wildly popular cyclist. The penalties for testing positive are rather stiff, including lifetime bans from the sport. And it may be possible for cyclists to get around some testing. But not likely, at least when it comes to truly performance enhancing drugs in quantities that actually improve one’s performance. In other words, if a cyclist has been repeatedly tested and has passed those tests (and these tests are random, sometimes in the middle of the night, and if you’re not there when the testers show up they count it the same as testing positive) then it is very unlikely that cyclist is doping.


Image from here

Lance has been tested nearly 40 times so far this year alone. For whatever reason he tends to get singled out a bit more than other cyclists. Many of the tests were blood tests too. He has passed every test this year, and every test so far in his career. Is this absolute proof of innocence? Of course not. But the question I have is what special information does the average person have that the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA), the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), and other respected sports agencies that govern drug testing don’t have? Testing for doping in many sports is a very recent thing – think of major league baseball. In cycling its been around for decades and has continually become stricter and more severe. Just to help quell some of the accusations, Lance Armstrong has even begun posting the official results of his drug tests on his Livestrong web site. At some point one has to say he isn’t doping.


Image by Frank Jansen, the Netherlands

I must say I have no interest in defending Armstrong. He can do that himself. Someday he may fail a drug test, or his past tests, which are saved, may be retested and drugs found. But I doubt it. And cycling is not all about Armstrong. There are several riders in this year’s tour I would love to see win the thing. But I have to say I’m going to let the antidoping control take care of the doping issue and I will just love the tour as I do every year – and as I’ve done so many times before, I will be rooting for Armstrong.

Finally, it would be remarkable for Armstrong to win an 8th Tour de France. But the truth is, it is remarkable for anyone to win such an event. I have ridden a couple centuries (100 miles in one day) in my life and they were difficult. To race that distance, and sometimes much further, sometimes over the steepest of mountain passes, and to do so for 21 days in a row is a staggering athletic achievement. No wonder there is a temptation to dope. Hats off to riders who don’t dope and cooperate with the antidoping testers. It’s good for the sport.


Image from Livestrong web site.

“Knock knock. Another antidoping control. Seems excessive but I’m not complaining. This is a good thing. I like good things times 40.”

~ Tweet from Lance Armstrong (on 7/11) before the second
major mountain stage of the 2009 Tour de France

Cycling Fans

I am a fan of the Tour de France. We all know that “fans” stands for fanatics, and cycling fans are that. I have been hitting key web sites each day, listening to live audio feeds, and tracking my favorite riders. I wish I could be standing along the routes cheering on the riders and taking in the unique atmosphere of the tour. There is no sporting event quite like a big tour.

There are also few, if any, sporting events at this level of competition that allow for fans to get so close to the athletes. Fans typically line the routes, often standing only inches away from the riders. Some even pat their favorite riders on the back as the riders struggle up the steep climbs. If a rider falls fans will sometimes rush out to help them right their bike and even give them a push to get moving again. There have even been numerous occurrences in the Tour de France over the years where an over eager fan interfered (usually inadvertently) with one or more riders. One year Lance Armstrong hit the road when his handlebars got caught in a fan’s bag strap that was too far out in the route. Naturally this only made Armstrong angry and he went on to win that stage.

The tour is also one of the few sporting events where fans will also openly mock the athletes. With all the doping controversy in pro cycling, this has become a way to remain fans of the sport while venting a little.

Cycling fans are a peculiar breed. Many ride there bikes up the steep climbs to in order to find the ideal location from which to cheer, as well as experience the same route as the racers. Many will camp out over night in order to see the peloton pass for a brief moment. And many will run along side the riders as they pass, sometimes wearing costumes and waving flags. The tour is also one of the only professional sporting events that does not sell tickets to fans. Pick a place along the route, set up your lawn chairs, grab your flags, put out your table of food, and socialize. I have to say that I like any sport where the fans drink great wine and eat brie while basking in the sun. Forget the lousy bag of chips and cheap beer I say.

I must admit that I “know” these things from the vantage point of someone a long ways away from the tour who merely finds the whole thing fascinating.

Here is a cross section of cycling fans at previous tours doing their thing:

Several times in my life I have stood on the side of the road for local bike races in and around my home town. I have not worn costumes or funny hats or waved flags or painted my face (or belly) or stood naked in a line. But I did cheer loudly and had a great time. A dream of mine is to get to the Tour de France someday and cheer on the big boys.

Finally, here’s a couple of images of a fan who will not forget that day:

There is something poetic in that.

>a triple sacrifice

>Here is a recent game in which I found myself in a tight spot, thought the game was lost, but then used two sacrifices to turn the game to my advantage. In the end my opponent was forced to resign or face an inevitable checkmate. I was playing white. My opponent was rated slightly higher than I.

http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/PGNViewer/pgnboard.asp?from=489318&bv=1&bgcolor=6495ED&fontcolor=ffffff&PgnMoveText=%5B%5B1.e4%20e5%202.Nc3%20d6%203.Nge2%20Nf6%204.g3%20c6%205.Bg2%20c5%206.b3%20Be7%207.O-O%20O-O%208.d3%20h6%209.f4%20Ng4%2010.h3%20Qd7%2011.f5%20d5%2012.hxg4%20d4%2013.Nd5%20g6%2014.c4%20g5%2015.Ba3%20f6%2016.Qd2%20Qe8%2017.Nxe7+%20Kg7%2018.Ng6%20Rf7%2019.Kf2%20Nd7%2020.b4%20b6%2021.Rh1%20cxb4%2022.Bxb4%20a5%2023.Bd6%20Ra6%2024.a4%20Qd8%2025.Rab1%20b5%2026.axb5%20Rxd6%2027.Rh5%20Nf8%2028.Nh8%20Kxh8%2029.Rbh1%20Rh7%2030.c5%20Rdd7%2031.b6%20Bb7%2032.Qxa5%20Qc8%2033.Qa2%20Qxc5%2034.Rxh6%20Qxb6%2035.Qa3%20Rf7%2036.Qxf8+%20Rxf8%2037.Rxh7+%20Kg8%2038.R1h6%20Qc7%2039.Rxc7%20Rf7%2040.Rxb7%20Rxb7%2041.Rxf6%20Kg7%2042.Rg6+%20Kh7%2043.Rxg5%20Rb6%2044.Rh5+%20Kg7%2045.Rh1%20Kf6%2046.Rh6+%20Kg7%2047.Rxb6%5D

The game began ordinarily enough with 1.e4 e5. Lately I’ve been trying different openings, but this time I went with the most common opening. Then I tried 2. Nc3 which turned it into a Vienna game. But by 27. … Nf8 I was feeling a bit cramped and disorganized. So I got an idea and played 28.Nh8. This knight sacrifice enticed his king to take my knight the next move so I could eventually set up 29.Rbh1, which I hoped would cause a little panic in my opponent. After a number of subsequent positions where I felt the game was probably lost I then played 36.Qxf8, sacrificing my queen and forcing 36. … Rxf8. Then at 38. … Qc7 his queen, brought in to save the position becomes a target which leads to 39. … Rf7. At this point the game is essentially over. I take the bishop, sacrificing my rook, and he now has only his king, rook and some pawns ripe for the taking. At 47.Rxb6 he looses his last rook and resigns.

I am sure my playing was full of holes, and I blocked in my bishop and knight and thus had to essentially play without them, but I like how I was able to wrap up the game. And I especially like using sacrifices. There’s something satisfying in that.

This was played on Chessworld.

>truckin’ – like the doodah man

>Today was a milestone for me. After witnessing the famed Butte to Butte 10k road race many times since the mid-1970s, usually cheering on friends, I finally ran the thing. My time was slow, the heat was more than I liked, my gate was more of a pained shuffle than a run, but I made it without walking or stopping.


The start of the race. I was nowhere near
these guys, just in case you were wondering.

The Butte to Butte has become a 4th of July staple in these parts with about 5,000+ runners and walkers. It starts somewhat near the base of one butte at the south end of town and finishes at the base of another butte at the north end of the downtown area. The beginning heads up a steep hill that can just about kill you if you don’t pace yourself, then the next mile is a gradual downhill that helps you catch your breath. The final four miles are on the flats through town.

My wife walked the 4.5 mile Mayor’s Walk with our two girls and the stroller. This was a big deal for her. Less than a year ago she was in a terrible accident that broke her pelvis/sacrum. She used to run 10ks and half-marathons. Now she is in pain all the time and walking 4.5 miles was quite painful for her, but it was also a kind of triumph. I am very proud of her.

I have not been training with my iPod, but last night I put together a playlist. The song I liked the most was Truckin’ by the Grateful Dead – for some reason it just had the right beat and spirit. The song that got me over the finish line? Die, All Right! by The Hives of course.

>this land is your land…

>

Happy Independence Day!

>dabbling in sci-fi’s golden age

>

“The earth is blue. How wonderful. It is amazing.”

~ Yuri Gagarin to Ground Control, 1961

Lately I’ve been going back to some classic science fiction writing. I started Asimov’s Foundation, Heinlein’s Have Space Suit–Will Travel, and Bradbury’s R is for Rocket.

Here is Isaac Asimov remembering
the Golden Age of Science Fiction:

I am convinced if there had to be a golden age of science fiction it had to be exactly when it was, in the couple decades prior to actual space travel. Technology had developed, because of WWII and the Cold War, to such a degree that many of the far fetched fantasies of earlier years now seemed almost plausible. And yet no object had yet been put into orbit or sent to another planet, and certainly no human had entered space. With this situation of having technology’s promise so close and yet so far it is no wonder the imaginations of so many were fueled in that direction. Once Gagarin orbited Earth the golden age had little time left. That had a lot more to do with the appearance and disappearance of sci-fi’s gold age than an emphasis on the rise of pulp magazines, etc.

And as a special bonus…

You know you’ve arrived as an author when you can get paid doing prune commercials.

>cycling season

>We are in the midst of cycling season. Several big races have already occurred, including the Giro d”Italia. On July 4th begins Le Tour de France. So let’s remember the great cyclists.

Here are three videos on Eddy Merckx – the greatest of them all.

Merckx breaking the hour record in
Mexico City, 1972

Merckx in training, and a look at
his personal life.

Merckx cries at doping
allegations, 1969.

Merckx was such a phenomenal cyclist that he is in his own category altogether. Lance, for all his Tour wins pales in comparison to Merckx.

>qualified to homeschool

>Homeschooling raises basic questions such as “why do we homeschool?” and “how does one homeschool?” But there is also the question, often coming from well meaning, and sometimes concerned, family and friends, “Are you qualified to educate your children?” This question raises a number of other questions, all of which are fueled by numerous assumptions and presuppositions. I want to try to answer the question because it is important to me and to my family, but I also want to try and give an answer because there are a lot of concerns among homeschooling parents as they worry about their “qualifications” and hope they are doing the right thing. Of course I am no expert (we are practicing teachers, like doctors practice medicine or lawyers practice law) and you may have better answers than I.

I want to split the answer into two broad categories: 1) What about being qualified to teach? and 2) What do the statistics say about homeschooling qualifications?

Neither my wife or I are qualified teachers in the eyes of many people. Though we are more educated than most people (our combined formal education includes three BAs, one MA, and an MBA) we do not hold a teaching certificate from any institution. It would not be uncommon for some to think that because we lack official, state sanctioned teaching credentials our abilities to teach our own kids are sorely limited at best and possibly dangerous at worst. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will add that this is true for the parent who has far more limited formal education than we. To be qualified to teach is something wholly other than a state sanctioned credential or even an accumulation of formal higher education.

Do not get me wrong, there are plenty of “official” teachers in my family and among my friends. I had plans myself to become a teacher and I think teaching is a noble profession wherever one teaches (except for places like the School of the Americas, but that’s another story). But someone holding a teacher’s certificate does not make them automatically or fully qualified to teach my child, nor does my not having said certificate disqualify me. Here are my reasons.

  • There is no one, other than my wife, who loves my children as much as I. Nor is there any who desires their well being as much, or an education for them as much. My wife and I have a unique perspective and passion for our children that no one else has. We know their nuances, their learning styles, their hearts. From the day they were born we have been committed to knowing and loving them. Have a teaching certificate does not instill a passion for teaching, and certainly not the level of passion and love I demand for anyone teaching my children. An educator who must carefully manage and teach 20+ students cannot offer the educational focus or specific academic goals that we can, even if they are passionate to teach. Of course, this does not mean I would never allow someone else to educate my children, just that a teaching certificate, or even 20 years of classroom experience, is a thin argument for saying a public school is a better educational choice than homeschooling.
  • In my experience the common educational goals found in most educational systems are below mine and my wife’s standards, whether they be reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, and all the rest. Schools, for the most part, also do not emphasize the arts as much as they should. We are not the kind of parents who seek to drive our children to educational extremes. We don’t want them to enter college at age 9 or receive their second PhD by age 17. We want our kids to grow up rather normally and at the right pace for healthy development, Regardless, many educational systems, and in particular public schools, tend to have lower achievement goals than we do. With our kids we don’t have to teach to the lowest common denominator. We also don’t have to focus on the slower learner and let the faster learner languish.
  • Developing an excellent curriculum is not impossible. There are innumerable resources for home educators to create wonderful, rich, and top-notch curricula. There are also good arguments for choosing some of these curricula over the standard fare found in many schools. We are fond of using the concept of the trivium as an overall guide, but there are others. And we adapt the trivium by including other ideas and constantly testing our choices through experience. We have also been greatly influence by the book The Well Trained Mind as a guide. The specifics of what books, programs, or exercises we use are too numerous to mention here. This means we are not tied to questionable top-down delivered federal or state programs, nor are we slaves to whatever is the latest method. We can change and adapt quickly, focusing more on the needs of our children than the needs of educational bureaucracies.
  • Implementing an excellent curriculum is not impossible. Many good ideas fail because of poor implementation. This is as true in education as is it in business. There is a mindset that sees the need to separate children from their parents and from their home environment in order to effectively implement educational curricula. There may be some wisdom in that, and for some children that might be best. However, we believe, and our experience tells us, that the home environment is highly suited to educating children. A “normal” day may appear less structured than one might find in a public school (no bells, no standing in line, no strict beginning and end of classes) but the integration of education with the rest of life is a better way to teach in our opinion. It is probably more likely that a homeschooled child will grow up with a more holistically integrated sense of learning as a part of life. Another benefit is the ability to move from one subject to another when it is most appropriate for the child. The “class” is over when the lesson is done, not when the bell rings. As we see it, a traditional classroom is not required and may, in fact, be a hindrance.
  • For many the idea of homeschooling does not fit into the common lives of many families where both parents work at full-time jobs and need a place for their children to be during the day. For many homeschooling families it is the wife/mother that does most of the teaching while the husband provides the primary source of income. This scenario just does not work for many women who love their careers and would go insane if they had to stay home all day with the kids even though they truly love their children dearly. (Note: Much homeschooling is actually done outside the home with other families and is not confined to literally staying at home.) But for many the homeschooling scenario is ideal. Some families, however, believe they need two incomes, and certainly some do, but a careful financial analysis often shows this not to be true. Adding up all the costs associated with having both parents working is an eye opener. Think of the costs of day care, dry cleaning, eating out, two cars, higher tax bracket, someone to clean the house and maybe do yard work. It adds up and can dramatically cut into the two incomes. Regardless, each family has to decide for themselves. For us it works, though we see it as an experiment year to year. Our willingness to “go for it” and make it work is another of our qualifications as teachers though it does not come with a signed and sealed certificate that says so.
  • Finally, some might say that all those reasons above may be fine and good, but you can’t deny that teachers are highly trained professionals. I have no reason to deny that. But I would say a couple of things. First, ask any teacher to compare their initial training with their experience and I would guess that hands down their experience trumps their training. Years in a classroom outweighs their official teaching credentials as far as making them truly qualified to teach. Second, we have all experienced the fact that the best teachers in life are often not professional teachers at all, but someone with a passion for the subject at hand, plus a passion that others understand that subject, and the desire to see the subject through another’s eyes. Thirdly, much of the professionalism of modern teachers has to do with things that are of little or no importance to homeschooling scenarios. Homeschooling does not have the same kinds of cultural and societal burdens as does public education. Homeschooling also tends not to be burdened with internal politics or socially cautious ecumenism.

You may have other reasons. I’m sure we do to, but I want to stop there. Of course some will still be skeptical. They might say all those reasons sound fine but let’s be honest. Traditional classroom education has been with us for a long time and is a proven method. Besides, with public education, they say, there is more accountability. Sure some schools might not be so hot, but overall it is still certainly better than a relatively untried and inconsistent homeschool education, right? Wrong. First of all homeschooling has been around for centuries whereas public education is a product of the industrial revolution. Homeschooling has been tried and tested long enough for us to know that prior to the industrial revolution history was largely made by homeschooled individuals, including virtually all of the great scientific, artistic, and social accomplishments that public school children study today. And even since the industrial revolution many individuals of noteworthy accomplishments were educated at home, including most U.S. presidents. Second, let’s look at some statistics that compare median standardized tests scores from public school students with homeschool students.

The following two tables come from a 1998 study comparing homeschool students scholastic achievements compared to both public and private school students. I hope these numbers address the question of whether, on average, homeschooling parents are qualified to teach their kids.

Median Scaled Scores (corresponding national percentile) by Subtest and Grade for Home School Students compared to publicly schooled children:

Grade N Composite Reading Language Math Soc. Stud. Science National
Median
1 1504 170 (91) 174 (88) 166 (82) 164 (81) 166 (80) 164 (78) 150 (50)
2 2153 192 (90) 196 (89) 186 (80) 188 (85) 189 (81) 195 (86) 168 (50)
3 2876 207 (81) 210 (83) 195 (62) 204 (78) 205 (76) 214 (83) 185 (50)
4 2625 222 (76) 228 (83) 216 (67) 220 (76) 216 (68) 232 (81) 200 (50)
5 2564 243 (79) 244 (83) 237 (69) 238 (76) 236 (71) 260 (86) 214 (50)
6 2420 261 (81) 258 (82) 256 (73) 254 (76) 265 (81) 273 (84) 227 (50)
7 2087 276 (82) 277 (87) 276 (77) 272 (79) 276 (79) 282 (81) 239 (50)
8 1801 288 (81) 288 (86) 291 (79) 282 (76) 290 (79) 289 (78) 250 (50)
9 1164 292 (77) 294 (82) 297 (77) 281 (68) 297 (76) 292 (73) 260 (50)
10 775 310 (84) 314 (89) 318 (84) 294 (72) 318 (83) 310 (79) 268 (50)
11 317 310 (78) 312 (84) 322 (83) 296 (68) 318 (79) 314 (77) 275 (50)
12 66 326 (86) 328 (92) 332 (85) 300 (66) 334 (84) 331 (82) 280 (50)

Median Scaled Scores of Home School Students (Corresponding Catholic/Private School Percentile) by Subtest and Grade:

Grade Composite Reading Language Math Soc. Stud. Science
1 170 (89) 174 (86) 166 (80) 164 (80) 166 (73) 164 (75)
2 192 (88) 196 (84) 186 (74) 188 (81) 189 (81) 195 (85)
3 207 (74) 210 (74) 195 (55) 204 (71) 205 (69) 214 (80)
4 222 (72) 228 (72) 216 (58) 220 (69) 216 (56) 232 (76)
5 243 (71) 244 (72) 237 (60) 238 (68) 236 (60) 260 (82)
6 261 (71) 258 (71) 256 (58) 254 (65) 265 (72) 273 (77)
7 276 (72) 277 (77) 276 (63) 272 (70) 276 (68) 282 (73)
8 288 (72) 288 (75) 291 (65) 282 (68) 290 (68) 289 (67)
9 292 (63) 294 (70) 297 (61) 281 (56) 297 (63) 292 (59)
10 310 (71) 314 (81) 318 (71) 294 (57) 318 (72) 310 (66)
11 310 (63) 312 (72) 322 (69) 296 (56) 318 (67) 314 (63)
12 326 (74) 328 (81) 332 (71) 300 (53) 334 (74) 331 (72)

These statistics are from only one study, but a quick survey finds many similar kinds of examples. Given these numbers, one must conclude that in general homeschool students out perform public school and private school students in standardized tests in all subjects and in all grades. This is not to say that our children will out perform the median for public/private education, but if we want to base our decision to homeschool on some objective criteria these numbers are not bad.

In conclusion, we all have a number of prejudices that seem to us to be mere fact. One prejudice I run into is the belief that homeschooling is, at best, taking a big educational gamble with one’s kids. I hope it is clear this a prejudice and not factual. But prejudices aside, many who homeschool, or who are thinking about homeschooling, question their own abilities to do so. They are deeply concerned abut their kid’s education and want to make the right decision. The truth is there may be no right decision, just several decisions that all have validity with both upsides and downsides. We have chosen to homeschool our children because it fits our particular situation, goals, and values. Many of our friends choose public education, and some private. All things being equal there is no universal right answer, but there is no wrong answer either.

Final note: For those who are contemplating homeschooling their children, but who are concerned whether they are qualified to do so, or are feeling pressure from family or friends to choose a more traditional route, I want to say fear not. But I can’t say that entirely. Yes, you are qualified to homeschool, I am certain of that, but whatever educational choice you make for your kids is a big deal. A little fear is a good thing. The truth is, one should have the same fear whether the choice is to homeschool or to send your child off to the schoolbus each morning.

>my new obsession (add it to the list)

>I want an Alleweder.

This is a human powered vehicle – in other words one pedals to make it go. The chassis is aluminum. The first one was designed and handbuilt in the 1980s. Since then several models have been developed, including one with a carbon fiber chassis. They are built in Europe, but kits can be ordered to build one yourself. Unfortunately, they are far too expensive for my budget, but I can dream can’t I?

I would smile too if I had an Alleweder.