I think that was the scary part of the article: kindergarten, instead of being a place where kids learn how to become students (activities that encourage focus, curiosity, taking turns, hearing other ideas, following directions to achieve a particular result, experimenting to see what happebns next, plus getting ready to read, write and add), kindergarten is now a place where kids start prepping for their first standardized tests.

Kids will be ready when they are ready: and that will be different for each kid. Some kids will do best when they are younger (the older kids show them where the bar is being placed, so the younger kids know where to reach). Some kids will do better waiting a year, when they feel more confident about themselves (and those 4y power struggles are largely over).

But I fear this practice of "red-shirting" has much more to do with the parents' self-esteem than the kids'. I think it's equally damaging to push kids too hard, too soon, and to hold kids back so everything is easy. Not every kid can be "above average." And I think the high-achievers are often in for a rough landing when most of their peers catch up to them. Life gets hard. Those of us who have had to struggle cope far better than those who found everything easy.

And I think redshirting for the sake of creating a false 'high-achiever" damages the other kids in the class. Why compete with the girl who can run so much faster than everyone else because she's 4 inches taller? At 5 (or nearly 5) it's hard to realize we all have value, even if we arent' all stars. It seems such a shame that kids could start first grade feeling that they don't measure up to their older, more confident, more capable peers.

we should alert the msm folks about this guy.

Maybe we should accidentally insert the word "democratic" in stead of "republican" before Milligan's title and see if it plays.

Talk about aid and comfort ...

I'm not speaking for other posters, but I can walk you through my brain.

ALL had made being anti-abortion and anti-poverty an "A OR B" choice. And ALL's reasons for ***protesting an anti-poverty rally because America has legalized abortions*** were because abortion kills babies.

I thought "Hmmm. That seems to be downright non-sensical, as well as short-sighted and mean-spirited. It actually seems the opposite of Christian virtues." And so I posted my thoughts.

I never, not once, suggested that if you're anti-poverty you can't be anti-abortion as well. And, I think that if we put energy into reducing poverty, we will in fact reduce unintended pregnancies, which will in turn reduce abortions.

In logical terms, that's:

if p then q

if q then r

therefore, if p then r

It's nothing like:

if a (anti-abortion) then not b (anti-poverty)

I suppose it's not impossible, but it's certainly implausible this side of a porno.

Written in the 80's set in the pre-revolution 60's, dealt with abortion.

Cynthia Rhodes' character gets knocked up by a slimy playboy (waitor?). She's unmarried, she's working class (how much money can a dance instructor in the Catskills make in 1963?), and a baby would cost her her job, her housing and her future prospects. Abortion is illegal, natch, so she is forced to go to a back-alley doc, who nearly kills her by using a dirty knife, etc. Jerry Orbach's character saves her life (somehow), even though he's decidedly anti-abortion. Jennifer Grey's character is a hero: she takes iover the dancing, gets the cash to pay for the abortion, and then gets her dad to help with the medical after-effects.

And yet, "Dirty Dancing" was a *huge* commercial success, with many woen seeing it a dozen times or more. It won scads of awards. And it was considered a "romance."

Ah, the halcyon days of the Raegan administration!?

We are told that award shows are boring, so we are bored. We are told that the Tonys aren't as important as the Oscars, so we don't tune in. We are told that last year's show was better, and so we think it was.

Personally, I thought last night's show was wonderful: plays of substance won. "Legally Blonde: the Musical" got nada. "Grey Gardens" and "Spring Awakening," two musicals that are taking The Musical in new (and exciting!?) directions were honored instead. "Coast of Utopia" and "Frost/Nixon," two plays that are thoughtful pieces dealing with complex socio-political history, were also honored. August Wilson's final work, while not a Tony Winner, was still recorded as a play of cultural importance via its nominations. The numbers we saw were fantastic (ok, except for "A Chorus Line" which I never want to see again. Honestly, how can we miss it if it won't go away!? But that's my personal taste). Fantasia was riveting: who knew an Americal Idol could act as well as belt out a tune? Audra McDonald could sing the telephone book and I would be riveted. Christine Ebersole cracked me up: what genius. And "Spring Awakening"?! Wow.

Yes, theatre caters to a smaller crowd than film. So what? It's one night. It's glorious. (And I am dying to know: who was the dude in the red plaid pegged pants?)

who is on the front lines or who is in the vanguard, as long as they're all dead.

My aunt served as a nurse in Vietnam. She used to send taped messages (instead of letters) home to the family. She cut more then one short because the enemy was shelling the field hospital. You can hear it over the static of the tape.

She's as much a hero to me - and to the men she helped stitch up, piece back together, and ease out of this life - as those she cared for.