Melanie_

Who decided at what age "public" school should start? And why was that decision made? Why was it decided that age 5 was when the government took over the education of children, and not at age 3? Or age 7? And why do you see the school as benefitting every citizen, but not child care? I'm also curious about what you determine to be an "educated populace". We tend to see academics as the measure of education, but we know that early childhood is a time when children learn about social behaviours - it's less important for a two year old to know the alphabet than it is for them to know it is inappropriate to bite another child when they want a toy, yet it is just as much a part of their education.

Excuse me? If anyone gets to be the bitter old hag, its me! I could give you lessons in bitterness.... and oldness..... and hagness..... have you seen my profile picture?

There might be some problem with it. Just as there might be some problem with abuse of alcohol and hand sanitizer in Winnipeg. But we haven't denied the citizens of Winnipeg the option of using hand sanitizer to prevent the spread of communicable disease, and we have the alternate option of running water and soap. Its offensive to take away health precautions for an entire community - children, the elderly, pregnant women, etc. - based on a pre-judgment of how some might react.

When it became public knowledge that hand sanitizer wasn't being sent to the reserves, and the reason why, Health Canada backtracked and sent cases up north. I haven't heard of any trouble from it.

Yes, some people drink hand sanitizer, whether they are on reserve or in Winnipeg. But it is incredibly paternalistic to deny people something that might be their best defense, particularly when other options are limited, just in case someone will abuse it.

First Nations communities in Manitoba were hit hard by H1N1 in the spring. Health Canada’s response was to tell them to wash hands more often, ignoring the fact that many of these remote communities don’t have running water. HC also didn’t want to send hand sanitizer; they assumed people would drink it because it is alcohol based. It took a long time to get medical personnel up to the reserves, and people were dying. Rightly or wrongly, many First Nations people felt they were being ignored, or worse, being targeted for the pandemic. Health Canada has been trying to convince them otherwise, but sending excess body bags probably doesn’t help get that message across.

I think part of my acceptance of this is that I was raised on a farm. I was told many times that the animals weren't pets, they were our food, and I knew that the chicken on the table tonight had been running around the barnyard earlier that morning. I may even have caught it and brought it over to the ax. This probably accounts for my more pragmatic view on sending an animal to slaughter. I can see your perspective, though, as it would be harder for a child to understand their decision without that context.

The problem with "scholarly articles" is that often you have to subscribe to the journal in order to retrieve them off the web. But there are plenty of websites that explain children's understanding of death, and they all agree that there are specific stages linked to age. Generally speaking, these correspond to Jean Piaget's stages of cognitive development. One of the indicators that a child has passed from the preoperational stage (2 - 7 years old) into the concrete operations stage (7 - 12 years old) is the child's understanding of irreversibility. In the preoperational stage, children see death as being something that can reverse - someone might be dead, but can come back to life. A child in concrete operations begins to understand that death is permanent. I understand some might find it unpleasant to expose children to death as a school project, but it really happens all the time. Children have goldfish in their classrooms, bring tadpoles in to watch them change into frogs (and then the frogs mysteriously disappear overnight), and discuss the life cycle of all animals. The children didn't actually see the lamb die, so it was still somewhat abstract, and they had the opportunity to understand the reality of where their food comes from.

Obama has an off the cuff moment, commenting on Kanye West.... "He's a jackass"

Often the "death" young children see in movies (particularly Disney movies) is reversible - Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and the Beast (in Beauty and the Beast) are lifeless, but are awoken with a kiss; Simba in the Lion King dies, but comes back as a disembodied voice, a vision, and a cloud; Baloo the Bear (in the Jungle Book) is pronounced dead, but then comes back to life; Hurcules goes into the Underworld to bring back his dead girlfriend, Meg. We know that young children don't understand the finality of death - the movies don't cause that, as it is a developmental stage, but they do hinder children's development of a true understanding of death. Children who have real life experience with death (whether that be grandma, or their dog, or even their goldfish) develop their understanding of permanence more quickly. I'm not really opposed to this experiment, as it sounds like the children were well prepared and had the supports they would need to accept responsibility for their decision. Some may feel a lot of guilt later, as their understanding of death matures, so the supports need to continue to be in place. But, if they eat meat, its better that they know that it comes from animals rather than from Safeway.

I'm glad your son is OK, Oleg. Did he get checked out by a doctor, though? You never know what might show up later, and if he does decide to prosecute the doctor's examination will be important to the court. Offering a bottle of wine seems a bit odd, to me...

OK, I figured it out. Somehow in the options I had switched to outline instead of standard. Not sure how that happened, though. Thanks for the help, Dancer.

Somehow instead of seeing the threads with all posts visible, I'm just seeing the first post and then a listing of who posted in the thread. I can click on people's names and see their posts, but I don't see the whole thread displayed. Any ideas how I can get my other view back?

I'm sure the racial angle will be played here, but really it is just Kanye West being a complete fool. Idiots come in all skin colours.

Kanye West is just a jerk, stealing a moment like that from a young kid. There is no way an apology even begins to cover it. At least Beyonce had the classiness to try to make up for it.

ABC news He'll probably be remembered best for "Ghost" and "Dirty Dancing", but I really loved "Youngblood". RIP.

You don't want to talk about Katz anymore, only dogz?

All summer, I heard Taylor Swift coming from both of my teenage daughters' rooms. Sometimes the same song at the same time. I'm also starting to like it - I may need an intervention soon.

You've had ample time to actually read the article you posted, so I don't know why I'm even doing this. But anyway, page 4, paragraph 10, word 21 = Katz. As a refresher....

Read the whole article, Lictor. The quotes I put in my previous post come directly from the article you linked to.

Absolutely. This is the point of the article - we need to recognize superficial differences, if only to help children understand that they are, in fact, superficial. When children are left to figure it out by themselves, with the implied message that to talk about differences is wrong, we are reinforcing the idea that there is something wrong about the differences.

Some quotes from your link, Lictor - I can see how you might be confused, as the title of the article contradicts what it actually says. I really think, though, you should make a habit of reading what you are linking to, so you can have more credibility in your posts.

Ah, I see. You are interested in becoming a global feminist activist, and want to know where the world's biggest injustices are, so you can get involved and work towards freedom for oppressed women and children. I salute you, and wait with baited breath to see the results of your crusade. Meanwhile, I'll just toddle along in my relativism and hypocrisy.

Yes, I get that. And as I thought about it some more, I agree with you, this is a good analogy. FGM was practiced in a part of the world that eventually became predominantly Muslim, and the cultural tradition became tangled up in the religion, even though it isn’t actually part of the religion (and there are people in those areas who practice it who are not Muslim). Just as Christmas trees became tangled up in Christianity, even though there is no basis in the actual religion for having them. One can be Christian and not put up a Christmas tree, just as one can be Muslim and not mutilate women.

Yup. Can't argue with that logic.