Far be it from me to make a fuss for no good reason. But I just have to ask, in this era of dragging each other to court and beating each other senseless with a rolled-up Constitution, and pushing convoluted rules and arguments that would restrict each other's personal liberty, equality, security, morality (all the while making scalded-cat sounds about our own rights being threatened by everything anyone else chooses or advocates for the nation):
Who here is for public compulsion and imposition of standards? Who is for private, individual liberties and choice?
No, I'm not gonna tell you --until later, after you stake out one clear position you personally will live and die by -- whether I'll apply your stand to public intrusions into "homeland" or "homeschool" liberties. I'm not gonna tell you in advance how it applies to social workers, schoolteachers, sensationalist reporters and sinking industries, or to soldiers, sailors, CEOs and CIA agents. Or on which side falls more political benefit for prosecuting or defending leakers and whistleblowers, or if the religious freedoms you mock or exalt will better help Israel or Mel Gibson, Schiavo or Sheehan, fundamentalist Christians or Eastern gurus to rock stars.
I especially won't tell you when I'll apply this firm commitment you're about to make, to choosing to have a child in the first place, and to choosing how to educate the child you do have.
Can you answer me anyway, on clear principle?
Don't narrow your shrewd little bloggy eyes at me! If you have to know in advance whether I'm reading from the red or blue bible, and from which verse pegged to which Clever Smear of the Day, before you'll answer straight and stick to it later when things get dicey, then it doesn't matter what color it turns out to be, or from where -- that ain't principle.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
I thought so.
[1] | 
[2] | 
[3] | 
[4] | 
[5] | 
[6]