I'm totally on board with this "rights must be provided for free" idea. That means the first amendment gives the right to free newspapers, the second amendment gives the right to free guns, and the 21st amendment gives the right to free alcohol.

How about a "clean up wall street" counter protest? Acknowledging crony capitalism we'd like to clean up instead of destroying corporations altogether, and taking a jab at the occupiers at the same time.

Except for people assembling to form corporations, of course.

The case is not Brown vs. A bunch of kids, it's Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association. It's the first amendment rights of the Entertainment Merchants Association that's in question here, not the kids'. The children only come into play in the question of whether protecting them from violent video games is a compelling enough interest for the state to infringe on the Merchants' first amendment rights. For your driving and drinking analogies to apply, it would first have to be shown that driving is an "expression of speech," and then that the state has no compelling interest in proscribing underage driving. Also, if you can't see the difference between a state infringing on a child's constitutional rights and a parent doing...

What does it say about your position if you have to lie to get people to support it?

I just wonder what kind of penalty we can attach to such an infraction that would be worse than being maimed or killed by a car you weren't looking out for.

Hang out on http://tweetchat.com/room/heritagesotu during the speech. Makes the speech endurable.

You actually made a pretty good case for when the powers of government are large, its sphere of influence should be small. A mother can be totalitarian with her own children, but not with the everyone's children in the neighborhood. Physical restraints employed by a prison warden are deemed unacceptable outside the prison, even in his own home. Likewise, if my city council proposed universal health care, for example, I would give it serious consideration on the merits, whereas when the federal government proposes it, I dismiss it out of hand on the principle of small government. There is no logical conflict to desire the vast majority of my tax expenditures to be decided at a meeting I can drop by on my way home from work.

Very good book, but came out in early 2009 and this is a 2010 list.

Wouldn't a true homophobe support more sending more gays into the line of fire?