New acquisitions

I raided my father's wood pile yesterday. I also obtained the 6 inch belt sander and it's bench.

Among the planks is a piece of oak. Quarter-sawn. About 1 inch thick. 24 inches wide. Six feet long. It's got a small deviation from flat down the middle, but nothing that requires excessive wood removal. I see a table top in this.

There is some cherry (surprise!), some walnut (not black), and some butternut. I also scored a couple of chunks of magnolia and a couple of pieces of osage orange. I left behind (for now) the two five inch thick chunks of the walnut. The walnut is marked "1977". It's well seasoned. I suspect that none of the wood planks are less than twenty years removed from being milled.

While I was up in New Jersey, I also stopped by to visit an old friend from high school. We've not been in contact for over 25 years. It was great to catch up and to compare notes. Since I graduated from high school, I've only seen four of my classmates. Jim likewise claims about the same number.

Musings on "judicial interference in parenting"

thornintherose recently shared a story from New Hampshire about a judge ordering that a young girl be enrolled in the public school instead of being home schooled. The primary piece cited was http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/judge-orders-homeschooler-into-public-school-for-being-too-religious/. That opinion piece jumps the shark pretty quickly and demonstrates that the author is not nearly as smart as he seems to think he is.

The actual order signed by the judge is helpfully provided at http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KurowskiOrder.pdf for our edification.

The parents are divorced. The mother appears to have primary custody of the child. When the child came of school age, the mother home schooled her. The father favored the public schools.

In the fullness of time, the question came before the court, as the parents were unable to reach agreement on amending the custody arrangement. Mediation having failed, the question was dropped into the court's hands for resolution. That pretty much ensures that the outcome is going to create something to get all worked up about.

The opinion screed on Dakota Voice carps about judicial interference in parenting decisions, as if the mother's position is the only one that matters. I guess in their world view, having the mother be a good Christian and shielding her eleven year old daughter from the moral cesspit that are the public schools is the only thing that can possibly matter. That the daughter's affection for her father is tainted because he does not profess the particular brand of religious belief that she has been inculcated with seems to be overlooked as of no great import. I guess ideological purity trumps having two parents.

The court order does make it quite clear that there is no finding that the child is in any meaningful danger of emotional trauma or abuse or any of that stuff. The child is bright, articulate, and academically at or above grade level. The order does specifically note that one of the benefits of being in the public schools is that she will be exposed to people who do not share her mother's specific faith and practice, giving her the opportunity to consider alternatives. The objectors latch onto that as a Clear Sign that the judge is anti-religious (or at least anti-the-mother's-religion). Handy for keeping the rabble roused, but otherwise non sequitur.

The court order conveys a sense that the judge did not lightly decide the matter, but it is clear that a decision had to be made and imposed on the parents as they were unable to come to agreement on the matter. Ignore that fact and you have serious rant material. You also create a serious credibility problem if anyone examines the rant carefully.

The decision was not, fundamentally, on religion or on homeschooling. It was not an activist court inserting itself into matters normally reserved to the parents. It was resolving a dispute between divorced parents in the only way that was left.