Chuck, if you want to have this discussion on a serious level, I'm game -- the kiddies have moved on. But it's time for me to hit the gym; there are certain laws which cannot be ignored, and the need to remain fit is not an option. I will be back for more, if all goes as expected.

I have "surrendered" as a matter of philosophy. "Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman" is Rabbi Hillel's exposition of the Torah. "This is the Torah. All else is interpretation." About all I can do is insist upon fealty to the law, as that is the only mechanism that has sufficient force to restrain our conduct. The "whose morals are to be imposed" question is a daunting one as a matter of theory; the "how in Hades do you impose them" question is a more daunting one, as a matter of practicality.

HD: "My point, Chuck, is that as a practical matter, we no longer have the ability to promote morals through the media. I might oppose your morals and you would oppose mine, but it is a moot point, not worthy of serious discussion. " Chuck: "Only someone insecure in his choice of "morals" who think so." I'm not insecure in my choice of morals at all. Matthew 7:12 sums up my approach to the matter and accordingly, as I wouldn't want you to impose your morals on me, I refrain from imposing my morals on anyone else. If your daughter wants to have an abortion, that is her choice, and I know that it is a difficult one. Furthermore, the law doesn't permit me to have a say in the matter, so it is a moot point in any event. Christian...

My response is a practical one. Even if we wanted to go back to the Ozzie-and-Harriet world you pine for, the media genie is out of the bottle. We don't have the capacity to promote morals any more. The churches are as corrupt as our courts and Congress. Today's kids learn that crime pays very well, thank you very much (Blankfein, Mozilo, Bill Gates [antitrust violations], Bush #43 [war crimes]). Morality is situational because that's what works. In a world where consequences are so reliably evaded, how can you even begin to tell a young man to "man up?"

BurgerKing: "Once again...how do you know denthead? What teachers do or not do isn't the issue...it is about the union facists not allowing the workers a choice. Ever been to grad school? Have you ever taught a class? Graded papers? You don't just show up at 8, take a two-hour lunch, and go home at 3. Teaching is a full-time job, complete with PTA meetings, continuing education requirements, and preparation time. BurgerKing: ""Harv is not the sharpest knife in the drawer." That is, of course, Townhall-speak for "he doesn't agree with me." Based on what do you call unions "fascist?" Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying...

Primus, if you understood what teachers actually do, you'd know that it is a full-time job. But then again, if you've never been in a classroom, you might be blissfully ignorant.

Popham: "Wisconsin is likely just the tip of the iceberg as the 21st Century American Revolution begins." This is truer than you know. Egypt, Wisconsin, Ireland -- all part of the same revolution. The Irish threw out the bums, and are likely to renege on the deal that bailed out the banksters. And from Dublin to Cairo to Madison, the man in the street is furious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koY6kXhQDQo&feature=player_embedded

Yeah, dear, Wisconsin teachers are living large on the public dole -- try hiring a lawyer, pharmacist, or nurse with twenty years' experience for fifty bills. As professionals go, teachers are scandalously underpaid, which has something to do with why are children fare so poorly.

KFed: "When the delinquent state democrats who had illegally abandoned their duties as representatives of the good people of Wisconsin finally showed up for work, Gov. Scott Walker will have won a decisive victory against the public sector unions in his state." Abraham Lincoln did the same thing, jumping out of a window to avoid a quorum call. But religious droolers with muscle where grey matter ought to be can't be expected to know that.

Simple comparisons between children in poor families and children in non-poor families using national datasets indicate that poor children are more likely to do worse on indices of school achievement than non-poor children are. Poor children are twice as likely as non-poor children to have repeated a grade, to have been expelled or suspended from school, or to have dropped out of high school. They are also 1.4 times as likely to be identified as having a learning disability in elementary or high school than their non-poor counterparts. Read more: Poverty and Education - OVERVIEW, CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS - Poor, Income, School, Family, Development, and Outcomes...