Pogs are still a thing kids care about?

I was attempting to be sarcastic.

Experience gifts are great. That is the main thing my kids are getting this year. Kelly asked for a snow vacation and CJ is getting a trip to DC. Since that doesn't automatically translate into something under the tree, I'm currently working on a word document for each that has pictures and information about each experience. I will print and bind (somehow) and wrap that.

Since that doesn't automatically translate into something under the tree

Snow globe? Snowman ornament? Kids blocks with a D and a C? Mini-flag? It's a gift and a puzzle!

DH just had to pay $200 out of pocket for his DTaP booster!

What?!? When I got mine done...ummm...4 years ago(?), insurance totally paid for it.

Christmas is saved!

Yay!!!!

I just did an onerous task that turned out to make me want to dance a jig. I have a jackass student whose behavior is akin to a 2 year old. Which is fine in a 2 year old. Unattractive and unacceptable in a 14 year old. I called home to talk to a parent about it, got his dad, and his dad is Not Pleased. I believe someone's going to have a bad evening. And that makes me happy.

I am ALL FOR experience gifts. Of course, this is after years of getting nearly random crap from my mom who would give me huge bulky (unwanted) things that I couldn't fit in my suitcase, and I then had to argue with her about the disrespect of leaving it behind when I flew home.

Poor Leif, he won't be 16 until his senior year.

He'll do fine--just have him befriend older kids with licenses for the rides, or younger kids who ALSO can't drive. I didn't get my license til senior year (I was 17) and lived in a suburb where you needed a car to get around. Of course, I also had a completely pathetic nerdy social life that mostly involved late nights at restaurants playing cards, or watching X-Files with friends, but whatev'.

Please stop me from arguing with a moron about a 2008 paper about women being more risk adverse than men.

He's taking to mean that women are just more risk adverse, period.

However, upon reading the paper I discovered that it was a)written by two economists b) was a survey of 1300 American college professors c)was solely looking at their financial investment strategies d) did not reference one scholarly journal on any sort of anthropological studies of homo sapiens.

So what I'm getting at is, if you're going to state that "women are more risk adverse as a whole, about everything, all the time, throughout history" you're going to have to provide better evidence than this paper by American economists about how white collar first-worlders invested their money at the start of a recession in the United States.

I am going to need these people to go out and interview 1300 bush people in Africa during a goddamned drought to see how risk-adverse those folks are at investing money in the American stock market.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to forage for a root.

Online video game for people who hate Christmas: [link]

Well, if he's actually saying risk adverse vs. risk averse, you could point out that issue. :)

[link]

And just because someone takes a "safer" route with their finances, doesn't mean in GENERAL...women might be argued to be reacting to societal forces that mean they are more often left penniless by divorce, laid off, likely to be on maternity leave, etc etc. (I'm making up the whys)

Given some of the economic risks taken in the last decade, perhaps a better term would be "stupid averse".

"Would you like to invest in these questionable mortgages?"

"No, no I don't think I would."

"Chicken."