Did it never cross the minds of the intellectual giants of the American Life League that many women have abortions due to poverty, mainly because they lack the resources to care for additional children? Did it not occur to them that poverty prevents women from getting access to prenatal care, the lack of which can cause miscarriage (i.e., dead babies), stillbirth (i.e., more dead babies), and prematurity (i.e., even more dead babies, plus a whole bunch of sick and damaged ones)? Did it never enter their thick skulls that it also causes high infant mortality, which kills a lot more babies worldwide than abortion?

It is now abundantly clear that the so-called American Life League does not give a damn about actual babies -- whether unborn, pre-born, newborn, or infants with some mileage on them. If they did, they'd support anti-poverty programs as well as anti-abortion laws. That they are protesting poverty relief when Jesus Christ Himself said a hell of a lot more about our obligations towards the poor than He ever said about any sexual topic whatsoever shows that they aren't interested in Christianity, either. They are interested in control -- specifically control of women. It is scary to them that individual women now have the ability to control their fertility and childbearing without interference from men or organized religion, and they want to stuff that genie back in the bottle as soon as possible.

So it's good that the American Life League is making itself into a laughingstock by protesting anti-poverty efforts. Maybe their fellow religious travelers will catch on to the fact that these people are nothing more than a bunch of authoritarians who are using the language of Christianity to give their radical agenda a false aura of legitimacy.

The neocons and the authoritarian right would use another big terrorist attack as an excuse to finally abolish our pesky civil rights.

My parents redshirted my brothers back in the '70s. They had October birthdays, which IIRC was just before the school district's cutoff back then. But my parents felt that they were too immature to start kindergarten at age 4 going on 5, and held them back a year. It worked out very well for them; all of them did fine in school and sports, went on to good colleges, and now have careers in various technical fields.

One of my brother's friends, on the other hand, was put into kindergarten early. Not only was this kid always the youngest in his class, he was immature for his age. This caused all kinds of problems for him and he had a really difficult time in school and afterwards. A friend of mine who also was sent to kindergarten early (her birthday is in December!) had a lot of trouble academically and socially in school due to maturity issues, too. She didn't catch up until college, but she did pretty well there and went on to get a master's degree in special education.

So I think there's a benefit to not sending your child to grade school before he or she is mature enough to handle it. An extra year in a pre-kindergarten program can make a big difference down the line. Also, some public schools have "transitional" first grade classes to give kids who had problems in kindergarten an extra year to develop emotionally, physically and mentally before going on to the real first grade.

And opera isn't such a bad model, either. The Sopranos may very well end up like a good tragic opera: everyone dies! (Although they won't go down singing.)

But my favorite is Berke Breathed's cartoon: Tony Soprano smothered by Bill the Cat at poolside. What ending could possibly be more appropriate than death by feline?