I think language is important. But, for me, I also see the value in a good story. When beautiful language and a great story go together, that's wonderful. But I can certainly enjoy--and have no problem with my children enjoying--a good story even when the writing is mediocre.

I think the difference is that Thalidomide was a new, undertested drug. Alcohol has been around forever, and so have pregnant women. Pregnant women have been drinking for a very long time, and the kind of occasional light drinking we're discussing here is accepted in many parts of the world. If it were associated with problems, those problems would be very obvious. I was trying to see if European rates of FAS were higher than rates in the United States, which is what we would expect if occasional light drinking during pregnancy increased the risk. I appears that the U.S. actually has higher rates. So the "not even a single drop" attitude doesn't seem to be reducing incidence.

Maybe I'm being naive, but are there many cases of FAS in women who do not have some sort of pattern of problem drinking--either alcoholism or binge drinking? Are there any documented cases of FAS in women who drank in the way being discussed here (1-2 drinks per week)?

I guess my take on it is that I want my children to read for fun, in their free time. Just like I don't dictate, beyond having basic rules about safety and behavior, what they should play in their free time or stop them from playing games I think are silly or pointless, I don't dictate what they (at this point, he) can read, beyond keeping him from material too mature for him to handle. If there's a book I think he should read, I either assign it or read it to him. During his free time he can read whatever he wants. I don't know, I must not be as discerning as most people, because while I don't think many children's books are great literature, I don't consider the "fluffy" stuff particularly badly written, at least at the sentence level. All the ones I've read are composed in standard written English and follow the basic conventions of storytelling (exposition--rising action--climax--resolution). So, by reading them kids are internalizing both the structure of standard written English and the structure of basic narratives. If all a child was reading was text messages or tweets, I might indeed agree that there was a problem. But I honestly don't see anything wrong with kids reading less-than-stellar literature. (We even allow Captain Underpants in our house, although DS isn't a big fan and only read the first one.) I do think there are a number of positive benefits to reading easier, lighter books. Right now DS is re-reading the Magic Treehouse series. DH read most of the books to him when he was 4 and 5, and now he's reading them on his own. He enjoys them, I think, because they are a really, really quick read (he usually reads for 1-1/2 to 2 hours before bed, and can get through two Magic Treehouse books during that time); he understands everything going on in them (none of the references or jokes or motivations are over his head); and he can relate to the characters. I'm totally fine with all of that. I think there's something to be said for books that a child enjoys, that make the child feel like a competent reader, and that presents characters the child can relate to. I'm honestly surprised to see how hard people come down on Magic Treehouse, because compared to the stuff I read in elementary school--Babysitters Club, Sweet Valley Twins, and Goosebumps, anyone?--today's children's series seem profound and educational. I also think that most readers wouldn't enjoy a steady diet of only classics; some would, but certainly not all. I read different books for different purposes. Actually, now that I've got so many different ways to read books, I even read different kinds of books in different ways. I find that I tend to listen to mysteries. I put a mystery or crime drama on my iPod and listen as I do chores or knit, and the story keeps my mind engaged while I'm doing something physically repetitive. I like hard copy YA novels. Sometimes I just want to get really immersed in a story that's very immediate and emotionally engaging, and so I'll grab a YA novel and spend the evening with it: I tell DH I'm off duty for the night, then read it in the tub for a bit, bring it in bed, and finish it in one sitting. Classics or more serious novels I'll either keep on my nightstand or read on my Kindle, and I read a chapter or two a night before I go to sleep. I read non-fiction when I have down time to read during the day. But, just like sometimes I don't want to watch a movie that's beautifully written and technically brilliant, and instead watch a Lifetime movie that I know will suck me in and make me cry but that I probably won't think about again once the two hours are up, sometimes (okay, often) when I read I'm looking for a small escapist pleasure, and not for a great work of art. I think the great thing about reading is that, even if you are reading fluff, your small escapist pleasure still has redeeming value.

Or, just because I enjoy torturing analogies to death, there are people who really enjoyed Twinkies or Spaghetti-Os as a child, and remembers them being so good. They have fond memories of Twinkies and Spaghetti-Os. But when, as an adult, they actually have a taste of Twinkie or a bit of Spaghetti-Os, they realize that they now taste completely gross and cannot imagine ever having liked them. But, remembering how much they loved them as a kid, they decide not to give their kids a childhood devoid of all Twinkies, because maybe they will be as delicious and fun for their kids as they remembered them being.

Did you avoid driving? I tend to think that, unless you were locked in a padded room, you couldn't have avoided everything that could have harmed your fetus during a pregnancy. I hate to harp on the driving thing, but driving is probably the most dangerous thing any of us do all day, and yet we think nothing of it. People who are terrified of the idea of letting their child walk one block alone have no problem driving their child all over creation. People who wouldn't so much as look at a diet soda during pregnancy don't limit their driving to avoid the possibility of an accident. We all make choices, and we all weigh things differently. I very, very rarely drink when pregnant (I knowingly drank one time with my first, once with my second, and never with my third, and each time it was well into the second trimester and involved one small drink). But, I have no problem taking the occasional OTC pain reliever. I'm not going to throw stones at other women for doing things for which no risk has ever been demonstrated.

You may actually be my Canadian twin. ;)

I guess I just don't get why. If both research and anecdote/experience/history indicate that there is no adverse effect to 1-2 drinks per week OR to moderate use of caffeine, why avoid it? What is the basis for that, other than superstition? And, I'm kind of a superstitious person, so I don't think avoiding things out of superstition is a terrible thing. I just think we need to admit that that's what it is, rather than acting as if it's a truly rational decision and that anybody who does otherwise is being selfish.

How many fetal deaths have been attributed to poisoning by artificial sweetener? How many babies have been born with health problems or birth defects that have been traced back to the use of artificial sweeteners during pregnancy? I don't go for artificial sweeteners, myself, but I do think we need to keep a little perspective here.

Does that mean that if a mother is having a cappuccino, the baby is having one, too? Even though research has found that moderate intake of caffeine is not harmful to the fetus, should pregnant women abstain from caffeine, since they wouldn't give their baby a latte?

But 1-2 alcoholic drinks per week is NOT marginally risky. It's not a tiny bit risky. It is, by all scientific accounts, not risky at all. There is zero risk. There is, however, a greater-than-zero risk associated with driving or riding in a car as compared with not doing so. So I'm not sure why we vilify women who choose to have 1-2 drinks per week while pregnant--and I'm not one of those women myself--when we see nothing wrong with pregnant women deciding to go out driving any time they feel like it. Most OBs, as far as I know, agree that taking 1-2 Tylenol on occasion while pregnant poses no risk. However, taking 20 Tylenol on one occasion or numerous Tylenol every day would indeed pose a risk. But the fact that 20 Tylenol could hurt the fetus a lot doesn't mean that 2 Tylenol will hurt the fetus a little; 2 Tylenol will hurt the fetus zero. That's what the research has found about drinking in pregnancy. It's not that one drink just hurts the baby a little, tiny bit, but that 1-2 drinks per week doesn't hurt the baby at all.

Is there any evidence that fast food tacos are harmful to the developing fetus? I guess I just wonder why every woman is so hard on herself about what she ate/drank/took during pregnancy. Avoid crack. Avoid meth. Avoid jello shots. But I really see no scientific basis for women feeling guilty about drinking diet soda, having a Taco Bell taco, or taking a Tylenol once in a while during pregnancy.

I don't enjoy it, either. I don't mind reading picture books, but I do not enjoy reading chapter books and novels aloud. It's too slow, I get tired, and it's just not fun for me. I do it because DS enjoys it so much. At least my DS is okay with my not doing voices. In fact, he actively encourages me not to when I make an attempt. :glare: ;) If he wanted me to do voices, I don't think I could stand it.

I've seen college-aged girls around here wearing that kind of outfit, and it is very cute and classy-looking. It's not my style--I don't do heels--but I do think it can look quite nice. That said, if she were open to a lower heel, I'd probably encourage that, for the sake of her comfort. But, it's not a hill I'd die on, either.

Has there ever been a study indicating that moderate consumption of artificial sweeteners would cause harm to a fetus? I've never heard of such a study, or of a child having problems because the mother ingested artificial sweeteners when pregnant.

Nobody is talking about moderate consumption of alcohol. Moderate consumption of alcohol would be WAY more than the 1-2 drinks a week being discussed. But, since has cleared it up, and all credible scientific sources indicate that 1-2 drinks for week have NO impact on the fetus. Having 1-2 drinks for week is no different, in terms of outcomes, than having 0 drinks a week. Did you ever drive anywhere, just for pleasure, during a pregnancy? How did you justify the potential risk?

Our neighborhood elementary school was one of the schools that was sold off and turned into a charter. My son's best friend goes there. He seems very happy with the cosmetic and policy changes. The school looks great. They really got it into good shape. And, it does seem like they have so far been pretty good about consistently enforcing discipline policies. But, education-wise, I have no idea. I asked him how things have been going, and they seem to only be doing reading and math (this is for fifth grade). They have no gym, no recess, no art, no music. They aren't doing history at all, and do science on occasion. If this was because the school thinks that the kids need a really solid background in the basics before they can move on, I might agree, but I would wager that they are doing it because that's what the kids will be tested on. In general, I'm a bit baffled by how schools here (and my friends who teach in the suburbs tell me this happens all over Michigan) run things. Teachers seemed to be switched from grade-to-grade and school-to-school every year. I don't get it. It seems to me that students are better off with a teacher who is familiar with the material; in my experience, a not-so-great teacher presenting material they are familiar with and lessons they've done before often does a better job than a really good teacher presenting material for the very first time. This constant shuffling around of teachers seems like it would only do a disservice to students.

Nice. Black people are lazy, make bad choices, and are always just getting offended, huh? Because let's not pretend that people's negative feelings about Detroit aren't highly tied to the fact that it is the city with the highest percentage of black residents in the nation. Our feelings about Detroit, I've found, reflect in large part our feelings about black people. I just spend a wonderful afternoon watching a community art installation put up near by home. (It's got a picture of my new baby and I photo I took of a boy in the neighborhood.) Detroit isn't the result of bad choices. There are lots of people here making really good choices and doing interesting, innovative things. Urban agriculture is huge in my neighborhood; I never would have imagined I'd learn about farming in Detroit! We've got a number of different arts programs reaching out to young people who are doing amazing things, and there are some really innovative schools here that are either growing or getting started. A friend of mine has been working on opening up a charter using a community-based education model for about four years now, and it's set to open in the fall. We're at least going to consider sending DS there. The library also recently had a " " to promote reading and literacy awareness. It's not like people here are unaware that illiteracy is an issue or just don't care.

You couldn't pay me enough. I don't think I thought I knew everything at 14. At 19, that's another story. ;) At least that phase passed pretty quickly.

The problems in Detroit aren't caused by abortion, and they certainly aren't caused by Muslims. (Detroit's Middle Eastern population is, IMO, a beautiful asset.) They are caused by greed and racism, so let's cry out about that.

I wouldn't say it's borderline abusive, but I also wouldn't say it's acceptable, mainly because it seems so pointless. So I'd go with bizarre and baffling.

I live in Detroit. I can see midtown from my porch and downtown if I walk a couple of blocks. I have ended up in parts of the city that I had never been in before and that seemed a bit sketchy a few times (once when going to the city dump--a trip to the Detroit city dump is an experience!--and once when I drove a pregnant student waiting at a bus stop by a local school home when it was very, very cold, and realized she lived all the way across the city--and, yes, I have given rides to people waiting at cold bus stops, especially older people or young pregnant women, and nobody has been anything but polite, gracious, and kind) and have had no problems at all. I'm a white person living here, and I haven't been treated as an "outsider" or "non-local." I once got lost in what I'm assuming was one of Detroit's "scary" areas, and I was given help by some men outside to find my way back on a road I knew. They weren't standing around waiting for a white chick to wander by so they could carjack her. In fact, by the large, the people of Detroit have been the most kind, accepting, and generous people I've ever met. I feel more at home and welcomed here than I've felt living in suburbs where everybody looked like me. I'm hoping my husband can find a permanent job here, because I never want to leave. I have completely fallen in love with the city and the people here. The people here are not animals roving around in packs looking for victims. In general--and certainly this isn't always the case, but just in general--if you or one of your family members are not involved in criminal activity, you have nothing to fear from gangs. Nearly all gang-related violence involves disputes with other gangs or over illegal activities. The innocent bystanders who do sometimes get hurt are usually family members or friends of people who are being targeted because of their gang or criminal involvement. White people visiting the city have very little to fear; there's pretty much no chance a gang is going to target and attack you. If you live here, then property crime is certainly a real issue and being robbed is something to be aware of and take reasonable precautions about (like not walking alone in certain areas after dark), but you certainly don't need to run red lights in the city. You just need to take the same common-sense precautions you'd take in any urban area. Put a club on your car--absolutely (in fact, my friends and I joke about having "guest clubs" stored in our front closets ;)); run red lights--unnecessary and dangerous. There are certainly problems in the city, but the people here--and in other urban areas--aren't some strange, alien species who are more like animals than people. They just aren't. You really don't have to be afraid of the city or its people.

Has that happened outside of one or two brief, isolated incidents? Because I've certain never seen or heard a manhole or manhole cover referred to that way. Have you? I don't mean, have you heard apocryphal stories about it happening, but have you actually heard/seen it for yourself? I take it from your past posts that you are a big fan of the free market. This was a particular publishing company deciding to publish an edition that they thought would sell. Do you think the government should have swooped in and stopped them? If they think they can make money doing that, why does it bother or offend you that one specific publishing company is publishing one specific edition of a book that is editing in a way you don't like? I'm not seeing how that's either awkward or "PC." Since in American English we tend to only treat things that are actually, biologically female as female, and the United States does not, AFAIK, have female parts, then I think using "it" is actually more technically correct than politically correct. It seems like a generational thing. I don't know anybody who would refer to the country as "she." It sounds like an issue of language change. I know language change offends many people, but it's how language works. Referring to the U.S. as "it" is neither awkward nor politically charged. I read her post, and I didn't really get what she was saying about "-isms." I'm not aware of that. I don't live in SF. Although, my husband has taken several trips there for conferences, and he was not given a list of approved and banned words, and did not witness any language police around. I have no idea what goes on in SF, but 1) if it doesn't bother the people there, why should it bother you? (do you think the federal government should come in and tell them to stop it?) and 2) it certainly has no bearing on my life. Honestly, when I hear people say things like this, I generally think they probably have very little contact with minority groups, and so are going on what they've been told by the conservative media about how people respond to certain terms, rather than how actual people actual respond. I have lived in a mostly-black area for many years. I've been teaching classes with mostly non-white students for many years. I have never, ever seen or heard anybody take offense at being called either "black" or "African-American." This idea that if you fail to use the "right" term, people will be up in arms, is just not reality. It's a myth. Yes, if I walked into a room and used the n-word, I'd upset people. If I started saying "Negro," they'd probably assume I was either crazy or racist (but even then it wouldn't cause the kind of anger/outrage that the n-word would cause). But, nobody would blink an eye if I used either "black" or AA. I imagine the same is true of American Indians. If you used any of the terms you listed, you wouldn't offend anybody. It might not be somebody's preferred term, but it wouldn't offend them. But, if you just used "Indian" or started talking about "Injuns," then indeed you would be causing offense. Just because there are some words that are clearly offensive and that will offend people, doesn't mean that there is only one "right" word that won't. Anyway, I don't know anybody--not a single person--who has real-life experience with somebody taking the kind of offense we're talking about here over somebody using a term that is non-preferred but neither archaic or a slur. That leads me to think that most people who imagine that they are going to get nailed if they don't use the "right" word spend very little time talking to people in that groups. The funny thing is that I always see people using black/AA as the example, but I think there's probably no group that is more okay with multiple terms being used than black/African-Americans. I do know blacks who will say that they feel AA is inaccurate, but I do not know a single black person who would take offense over either word. I think we like to imagine, quite frankly, that black people are just sitting there waiting to take offense so that we can excuse our own actual racism as them "overreacting," when in fact black people are, in my experience, far more accepting of multiple terms being used than nearly any other groups I know. It's actually people with disabilities who are the group I'm most aware of getting offended over language use. And, that's totally understandable, because words that are very offensive to them, like "handicapped" or even "crippled," are still used with regularity. But it's funny that nobody ever mentions people with disabilities when they talk about "easily offended groups," but always talk about blacks. I've actually never seen that, myself. Well, actually, that's not entirely true. One time I did. I recently had a friend move here from Oregon. She was very surprised that there's an area of the city called "Mexicantown" and was hesitant to use it. In Oregon, if you used that term, it would be as a slur. Here, it's what that part of the city is actually called; everybody uses the term, including the hispanic population there (and, no, you aren't going to get anybody mad at you for using "hispanic" or "latino" when the other is their preferred term--there are enough actual racial slurs aimed at people of Mexican descent that they aren't going to take offense at a non-preferred non-slur being used). That really wasn't about PC, though; it was about cultural difference and context. "Mexicantown" could indeed be offensive if it were a label imposed on an area by outsiders, particularly if they were using it to demean that area. But, that's not the case here. Being aware of context is a good thing; it means somebody isn't tone-deaf when it comes to language. I don't see that as "feeble-minded" or fearful but as intelligently trying to use language in ways that will make the point you want to make, rather than one you don't want to make. When it comes to Newspeak, I think Orwell would have taken far more offense with a "culture of life" that defines "life" as only referring to embryonic and fetal life and champion pre-emptive war and capital punishment, people who rename a tax only on those with very large estates a "Death Tax," "clean air" legislation that involves dropping regulations on emissions, and people calling union-busting legislation "Freedom to Work" legislation. But, let's not call that PC, right? That's just a fully sensible and straightforward use of language. ;) But, again, I think the primary thing is that, if we are truly concerned about people taking offense to often, then our best bet is to try to take offense less often ourselves, rather than pointing fingers at "those people" who we think are just too sensitive.

How old are your kids? I had a very, very easy time resting after my DD was born. My DS was 6, and he didn't need much hands-on care. I was able to get lots of rest after DD was born, even when I didn't have any help. After the new baby was born was a different story. DD was only 17 months old. And, she's a HUGE 17 month old, so there was this 30-pound toddler who needed to be put in and out of her crib, in and out of her high chair, and up and down off the changing table. I had a very easy delivery and a smooth recovery, but even so, there's no way I would have been up to caring for her alone the first 2 weeks.

I have no personal experience being in a sorority. However, I have taught freshman writing courses for the last nine years. I can say that, when I was teaching at a university that had a large, active Greek scene, I saw a marked drop in academic performance in students pledging fraternities during "rush." (And a truly surprising number thought that pledging should be considered an extenuating circumstance to be factored in when I was grading.) I didn't tend to see it in female students who were pledging, though. That is as far as my experience extends, though. The school where I teach now has sororities and fraternities, but no houses. I assume the pledging process is less intense and the commitment is less significant, because I rarely hear students talk about it and don't see it affecting academic performance. I will say that I'd probably discourage my kids from pledging, particularly my boys and particularly in their first year of college.