Schools Ravaging The Environment

I figure since in this day and age where we are forced to endlessly ponder the *footprint* of toilet flush frequency and clean sheets at hotels, that it's only fair to examine the full environmental impact of mass schooling.

Suburban *moms* and SAHDs/WAHDs, just about all they do each day is taxi their kids from one place to the next - chiefly to and from what they consider *school*. Just drive by almost any elementary school in the morning or afternoon. The line of cars waiting to chauffeur the juvenile *rock stars* is staggering. When I attended these hoosegows, from 1980 to 1988, nobody was picked up by their parents. Every self-respecting, neglected brat took the bus or walked home. I was actually walking to and from school in the 1st grade a full mile each way - admittedly, only half of it was *uphill* and it only *snowed* for 75% of the school year.

And although I didn't have to walk home everyday for lunch (y'all realize apparently the brown bag wasn't invented yet back in the 40s and 50s), I did have to eat the sandwiches my father made OR starve since they had no marketable value. Let the record show I was pretty darn thin - daily walking and the meager prospect of liverwurst or bologna will do that anyone.

When I did break down and eat them, well,....I'm sure I looked as satisfied as Bear Grylls!

But I digress.

Just imagine what car traffic would be like in the morning if everyone homeschooled their kids. How much less carbon would be burned? How many fewer polar bears would float away???!!!



I take my 4 year-old son to what everyone except me calls *school* or *pre-school* twice a week for 2.5 hours each on Tuesday and Thursday. They don't learn jack-sh*t there; it's glorified baby-sitting, nothing more. Next year the program goes to three days per week and I am pulling Prince C-Nut out. I've got to stay focused and not digress, again.

Let me just say, that I really dislike *school* days. It takes 1.5 hours of rushing to get out the door - between rousing my son out of bed, jamming breakfast down his throat, brushing his teeth, getting him dressed, evacuated, etc. Plus, I have to fix myself up - there are a lot of moms out there - AND, I have the issue of my 2.5 year old Princess to get ready as well. Though, now I just leave her in pajamas and let her sit in the car with stinky breath, a full diaper, and an empty stomach while I do the drop-off.

Then, by the time I turn around and get home, it's 9:15 and I have, at best 2 hours of peace with one less kid. But in that window, I have to eat breakfast, change my daughter's bursting diaper, evacuate myself, etc. The time absolutely flies by. Before you know it, I am back in the car spending another 20-30 minutes for the pickup.

This process, this ordeal is such a tremendous waste of time AND energy....and for what? So my kid can assemble a pre-made valentine and goof off in the playground with his age-mates?

Realize that altogether I probably spend a total of 2 hours *getting ready* and *running around* with very little accomplished. Do y'all appreciate how much quality one-on-one teaching a homeschooling parent can get done in that time frame? Most homeschoolers spend a mere three hours per day on their education.

Right now I commit just 15-30 minutes per day with the Prince on his *work*. He's barely 4 and already halfway through this book:



Look at the age level - 6,7,and 8!

By the time he's eligible for kindergarten, Sept 2010, you watch, he'll be reading and computing at a 5th grade level.

All that's needed for such progress is $6.95 for each book, a number 3 pencil, 15-30 minutes of parental oversight, AND your kid not getting shipped off every day, er outsourced, to some masquerading *school*. That's it!

Think of all the miles driven, the hours and money wasted, and THE CARBON BURNT by scurrying parents by the time their kids are educated to a *5th grade level*.

Homeschooling is GREEN!!!

And nothing's GREENER than working out of the house AND homeschooling your brood.

Heck, we do less laundry and take fewer showers to boot!



And, for good measure, when we do break down and bathe, I've got the whole C-Nut clan peeing in the shower to save water.

Hollywood's Typical Stay-At-Home-Dad

So last night I stopped the dial on HBO and started watching Little Children.

My wife was half-asleep but didn't stay that way for long. Here's the info description from Comcast:

Best Actress Nominee Kate Winslet gives a tour-de-force performance in this gripping and incisive slice of suburban life set in Massachusetts. She plays an unhappy housewife who has a ruinous affair with a restless stay-at-home dad.

The movie opened with four Desperate Housewives gossiping at the playground. Onto the scene burst a studly stay-at-home dad who made the women feel like school-girls anew. One even jokingly remarked that they hated him BECAUSE his presence made her "put make-up on in the morning".

Note to female readership - Y'all should be doing that anyway!

Now this far in, Mrs. C-Nut, piqued by the familiar context (a Massachusetts setting to boot!), was no longer on her way to dreamland. She was sitting up, with glasses on. I, was laughing my hiney off. Remember, I too am a work-at-home/stay-at-home dad who spends his fair share of time at parks with *moms*. And I too, am a stud (see profile pic).

The dude, played by Patrick Wilson, was a former college football star and a bar exam flunkie. He's emasculated by the fact that his wife (Jennifer Connelly) wears the pants; and palpably depressed by his *primary caregiver* role.

The frisky Desperate Housewife was Kate Winslet. She was the *second wife* of a porn-obsessed workaholic. She too felt all-around unfulfilled.

I had to turn it off, er pause it, 42 minutes in because it was just getting too late. Apparently the rest of the movie is about, suprise, surprise, home-wrecking adultery between Kate Winslet and the stay-at-home DILF; along with a subplot on a neighborhood sex offender. I may watch the rest later this week.

Though I had never heard of it, Little Children was a big hit with audiences and the Academy (3 Oscar nominations). Was the acting and the plot that good? Or did the story just arouse a lot of daydreaming bored women?

Of course, I'm sure the film also ruffled the insecurities of a few late-working husbands.

Here's the trailer, though it doesn't really focus on the hilarious first 42 minutes that stirred my wife. You'll have to see the full movie for that.



I've got to admit, with my aggressive playground rotation and the pervasive friendliness of this region, I have met a bazillion *moms* in the past year or so. And I have good relationships with a super-majority of them - notwithstanding a few Morons like that French chick.

My wife is well aware of my popularity. I have unabashedly told her that every stay-at-home mother's fantasy is...

...a man that can change diapers, feed toddlers, etc.



And of course every hardworking man's latent fantasy is a woman who can bring home the bacon!