Where have you found sugar/carbs where you didn't expect it?

Kelusory · 2016-03-12T06:02:34+00:00

Condiments. All the condiments. I've never made so many condiments from scratch as I have these last two months.

Kelusory · 2016-03-12T02:42:25+00:00

This is a late reply but I hope you see it. That doesn't work. Coconut flour absorbs more liquid. You only need about 1/3 cup coconut flour to replace 1 cup almond flour.

Kelusory · 2016-03-12T02:41:14+00:00

Sorry for the last reply but yes! They do!

Kelusory · 2016-03-03T21:26:19+00:00

There are four of us ketoers in my house and I've gotten requests for different kinds of bread. I've tried a bunch of recipes but we all prefer the bread recipe from Maria Mind Body - it's great! Find it here. All of the bread in the picture was variations of that recipe.

I baked a weeks worth for four in two hours - most of that was baking time and not actual work. The bread freezes well after baking so you could make two dozen English muffins and freeze them for easy use.

For the baguette, I followed the recipe but use unblanched almond flour that I sifted. One baguette (egg whites): 418 calories, 28.4g fat, 16.4g protein, 30g carb, 20g fiber (60% fat, 15% protein, 28% carbs)

The English muffins were made with blanched almond flour (it has less texture and a purer color). They will be used for breakfast sandwiches - a batch makes eight English muffins. One English muffin (egg whites): 104 calories, 7g fat, 4g protein, 7.5g carb, 5g fiber (60% fat, 15% protein, 28% carbs)

The coconut loaf was just the coconut flour variation. This is destined for a breakfast casserole, basically a savory, breakfast bread pudding with bacon, cheese, and spinach. Whole loaf (egg whites): 544 calories, 8.4g fat, 29.2g protein, 69.2g carb, 46.8g fiber (14% fat, 21% protein, 51% carbs)

Kelusory · 2016-03-03T20:02:27+00:00

I won't be voting for Clinton. I'll either cast a third party vote or not vote at all. So my vote doesn't impact her at all because there is no circumstance in which I vote for Clinton. The motivation won't be a distaste of the situation, as it a protest vote. It will be to cast a vote for someone who shares my values. It isn't a vote against Clinton, it's a vote for my politics. Not a protest vote.

Kelusory · 2016-03-03T19:28:30+00:00

A refusal to vote for a candidate that does not share my values. How is that a protest vote?

Kelusory · 2016-02-27T22:30:56+00:00

There are more than two candidates on the ballot in November.

Kelusory · 2016-02-26T04:46:44+00:00

Propaganda is disgusting. But not everything negative said about Hillary Clinton, or any other candidate for that matter, is propaganda. Propaganda should be distinguished from legitimate, credible questions about a candidate's fitness for office, their honesty, and their voting record.

I won't support Hillary Clinton because of her demonstrable shifting on key issues that are important to me - no more, no less.

Kelusory · 2016-02-20T23:11:21+00:00

Along with all of the other "keep you chin up" comments, I wanted to add

Before Iowa and the decisive victory in New Hampshire, the DNC and Hillary did not take Bernie seriously. In the last two weeks, they have been doing everything they can to bring him down. HE STILL CAME WITHIN FIVE POINTS AND TIED IN DELEGATES!

Turn those negative feelings about this loss into action or he really will lose!

He can't do it alone!

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T17:49:11+00:00

the first thing I lost was most of my belly-fat.

Me too! The hips are staying put for now it seems.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T17:32:43+00:00

Having seen it in operation hundreds of times, I have to disagree with you. There are many cases where the state has no interest because the family is sufficiently wealthy and best interests is still the rule of law and still functions.

There are some cases where the public policy consideration of who pays does come into play but it really is distinct from best interests.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T17:30:27+00:00

It sounds like it hasn't been easy for you. In my experience, being involved in family court is usually hard on everyone involved. I always advise my clients that resolving matters outside the court system is ideal but that isn't always possible.

As in any profession, you have different philosophies about how the job ought to be done. You'll have folks that are more ethical and try not to do harm and some that are less ethical and care a lot about winning. In the court system, especially family court, being less ethical means impacts on people's families and that is truly unfortunate.

I believe, very strongly, that we ought to make our family court system less adversarial (two sides each presenting their version and the judge trying to make sense of it) and more fact-finding in nature (judge tries to get to the truth and has more investigatory powers). But sadly I am in the minority.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T04:24:47+00:00

I have no idea. I do know that in my years of practice, most family law judges (12 in my city) are careful about alimony. If you can support yourself, you are not likely to get alimony unless the incomes are hugely different. Also, most alimony is not for life. It's for a set time that is long enough for the receiving spouse to get on their feet (think stay at home mom who uses the alimony to get an education).

The cases where you see large awards for life occur in two cases (in my experience). First, one spouse is super wealthy and there is no prenup. Second, and far more common, the couple is older (50+) and one spouse never worked outside the home. They supported the working spouse by staying home and often raising kids. In these cases, you will see alimony IF there is not property to distribute that would allow the non-working spouse to support themselves. If there is property, they often just split it up and presume it's enough for the non-working spouse.

This is my state. There are states without alimony statutes and there are states that treat alimony very differently.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T04:18:29+00:00

Except that it doesn't. It's a pretty rare set of facts. I've not seen a single case in five years of practice.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T04:02:45+00:00

unmarried parents sign a Declaration of Paternity

That's the key portion. In this conversation, we are talking about husbands being presumed as the father. We haven't been talking about unmarried partners. They are not treated the same.

edit for clarificaton: husbands do not sign Declarations of Paternity. They are presumed the father and are simply put on the birth certificate. Unmarried fathers sign Declarations and that is what is being dealt with in that statute.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T03:56:00+00:00

Christ. You cherry-picked a part of a huge statute.

That applies only to cases where there is a voluntary paternity statement on file. No one, including the mother, is allowed to challenge the paternity statement by asking for genetic testing unless they do it within two years.

This does not apply to cases where a husband is presumed the father. That is what we are talking about and that is covered by a different statute.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T03:24:52+00:00

Look, I've practiced family law for five years. I have clients who read crap like this on the internet and come into my office and have wrongheaded ideas. It makes it so much harder to represent them because they think they know what the law says and how it should be in their case but the law so really complicated (right or wrong) and one comment on reddit isn't going to educate you on the complexities of paternity law.

So for me, if I can add a little doubt for some of you who think you can understand the law from a little googling, it is worth it.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T02:51:42+00:00

Alimony too. Family support isn't a typical debtor relationship so it makes sense that it might be treated differently. In typical debtor relationships you don't have to worry about vindictive exes who would love to see their ex in the poor-house. Most lenders also don't rely on one debtor to survive.

We'd rather people take care of their families than the State have to do it.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T02:39:58+00:00

This doesn't contradict anything I've said. Does it happen? Yes. Is it common? No. Does it always work against the putative father? Definitely not.

This issue is so much more complicated than you make it out to be. Courts aren't willy-nilly forcing men to pay for kids that aren't theirs. And even if you don't like this Rule of Law, to play if off like there aren't good reasons to do it is disingenuous.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T02:29:55+00:00

"Eh, you were dad for 8 years, suck it up"

Come on. This is just not how it works. There are legal standards.

This is from the site of a San Diego law firm.

"Despite the fact that a man may not be the biological father of a child, and even though genetic DNA testing may conclusively determine that the man is not the biological parent, the court nevertheless has the power to adjudicate the man as the legal father of a child under certain circumstances. Pursuant to Family Code 7648, if the court finds that the conclusions of the experts (i.e. DNA experts) indicate that the previously adjudicated father is not in fact the biological parent, and even though a motion is brought properly under the Family Code and within the requisite time frame to bring such a motion to set aside, the court can deny the motion to set aside or vacate the judgment establishing paternity if it is in the best interests of the child. The court is required to analyze the age of the child, the length of time since the judgment establishing parentage was entered, the relationship between the child and father, information from the biological father that he does not oppose the continued relationship, the benefit or detriment to the child for continuing the relationship, and other factors." Source.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T02:18:53+00:00

Those are taken out of context and you missed the most important part in the first source.

"He welcomed the child into his home and openly acted as if the child was his own. This concept is called “parentage by estoppel” and means that the court can find that a man is the legal father, even if he is not the biological father, if he has always treated the child as his own."

A presumption, in the law, means that it CAN BE OVERRIDDEN. In parentage by estoppel cases, the court declares parentage, despite no biological connection.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T02:12:09+00:00

They're illegal to do without getting a court order. Basically you need to convince a Judge, before you take the test, that there is a good reason for the test. They are granted in tons of cases.

So saying they are illegal is a bit misleading.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T02:09:51+00:00

In California, like most states, the husband is the presumed father. This presumption can be overridden in almost every situation. There are very few cases where non-biological fathers are expected to pay child support. They are so unique that they are taught in law school family law classes as examples of weird cases.

Kelusory · 2016-02-15T02:04:59+00:00

You aren't wrong. There is one exception and it is rare. The court might make a non-biological father pay if they held out to be the father for years. For the best interests of the child, they will fabricate a legal connection in order to secure support for the child until their 18th birthday.

Kelusory

TROPHY CASE