I am perfectly capable of putting the blame right where it belongs, thank you. And, my experience is the rule and not the exception.

But you will never accept that; you will dismiss everything I produce as not being up to your high standards of objective proof (what have YOU done to prove your point besides call people names?)

You can start with the work of scientist Rob Reich, or the work of Jane Gross, who found some children had been murdered by the abusive parents who were "home schooling" (read: hiding injuries and malnutrition). One woman killed four children--oh, while we are at it, Andrea Yates was a homeschooler. Oh, but wait, she's totally atypical, right? Except she's not.

The NEA has gathered evidence that homeschooling doesn't work, but naturally you will condemn the source. Criticism of homeschoolers' inflated claims of their own "average" academic achievement, including performance on test scores, is offered by Katherine Pfleger.

I expect this body of anti-homeschooling information to grow as time passes. Right now, little has been done because the movement is so recent and its proponents extremely hostile. If asked to participate in studies, they avoid them unless they are being conducted by a pro-homeschooling source.

But just because a lot of people are yelling doesn't mean they are right. I stick by every word I've said here.

I'll leave you with a quote from Wiki that struck me: one danger of homeschooling is that it has the "potential for development of parallel societies that do not fit into standards of citizenship and the community".

This is why the rest of us have a stake in the matter, and why we should be saying something, and making our own voices heard.

Might want to check out the work of Michael Apple, too, those who are howling about providing sources.

Do your own damn homework.

Rob Reich used to be U.S. Secretary of Labour and he's all over the 'net. Figure it out.

And what are YOUR journalistic credentials? Are you Ms. Amanpour in disguse?

Oh, wait, all those war stories she reports on--merely anecdotal. That's not, you know, journalism. We need a numbers crunch to convince us that war is bad.

You're an asshole.

No community needs to tolerate the emergence of groups dedicated to the destruction of the larger society. That's not freedom, that's telling a murder victim to please stand still while you bring down the axe.

It's a bunch of avowedly undemocratic folks demanding permission to overturn the country. We don't need to allow that.

Remember your rights end where the rights of others begin, Chad.

Like I said, you've already determined that you will accept nothing, so what's the point?

Eagerly awaiting your dissection of Dr. Apple, since you know more than the Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Policy Studies at Madison.

Now you're going to tell us you don't need no fancy book larnin' to be an expert.

Sure. Okay. Have a good night's sleep.

Write about your lady friend. Why not? Although its a story that's been told many times before, we are still drawn to these personalities--especially in print, where they cannot hurt anybody. Give it a try:)

about this article until the author said that she missed the work and wanted to get back to it, because it was so interesting or something.

WTF? That's not really work that one normally finds attractive. Her attitude struck me as creepy. This author is some kind of disaster tourist, a misery day-tripper. Bleah.

I agree with those who point out that the writing lacks any kind of heart and therefore more or less lacks a point. I also agree with the poster who said she deliberately makes it sound like all evicted people are crackhead bums. Hmmmm. This may be because of the area/neighborhood she works in, or maybe it's because, as readers, we need more context and nuance. She pulls out the lurid examples but then fails to explain them. frankly, I would have preferred less lurid and more humanizing observations.

A few details would be nice, too. A child's artificial leg? Well, what about it? What did she think about it? What should we think about it? There's a legless kid out there who has a new leg, no leg, or what? I really didn't know where she was headed with that. People might leave behind an old prosthetic for any number of reasons. Maybe the child outgrew it.

The author shows no sign of being able to flesh out her observations. So we're left wondering what she's trying to say, exactly.

A fascinating subject that needs a better writer to tell the story. I would love to see Barbara Ehrenrich tackle this job for a few months. The resulting book would be very different!

We just need to tax all income after the first million at 95%.

The rich will still have more money than any one human or family of humans needs, and the problem will be solved.

Sure it's socialism. But if these folks all still get a vote, it's democratic socialism, not Stalinism or Maoism. What we have got now is no democracy of any kind, but elitist corporatism.

So what's everybody's problems? Take back the plundered goods, and fix the country. Jeez.