Like I have said, he can see it, but I would prefer to watch it with him, at home.

I would also not want him to watch it over at my parent's house, where he would be subjected to my father ranting, raving and cussing every time the president opened his mouth.

Why? You don't even know what the speech contains yet, nor are you apparently willing to wait and read it before making that determination. And even worse, the school system that your child attends is apparently unwilling to do this either. That suggests to me that your minds have all been made up on the matter, without having one shred of evidence that there is anything remotely controversial in the President's remarks.

One wonders why we bother with education at all, since it seems the schools are not allowed to teach things like science and politics. Next thing you know, someone will object to them learning arithmetic.

Oh hell, we should just call it what it is: Daycare for older children.

"We don't need no ed-you-cay-shun!
We don't need no thought control!"

I find the story of the pro-healthcare jerk biting off the finger of the anti-healthcare protester to be horrible.

But I admit that I did smile when I learned that the protester had his finger reattached, and that it was covered by Medicare.

Arithmetic does reject god's omnipotence so it is pernicious as taught in our schools and should be avoided if possible.

2+2 always equals 4 should more properly be taught as "Some say that 2+2 always equals 4 but it is an equally valid view -- and, frankly, the right one -- that 2+2 only appears to always equal 4 but that is because you do not take into account the almighty awe-inspiring power of our lord creator to have 2+2 equal 5 when it suits his purposes in answering our prayers or smiting Jews and pagans. So, when doing your homework this evening it may be that at that moment in time 2+2 will equal 5. Unfortunately, when you turn it in tomorrow and I grade it, we may be back to 2+2 equalling 4. So I am going to have to assume than any non-4 answers were not actually erroneously but simply evidence of God's active role in our daily lives. Perfect scores for everybody."

Obviously, a proper education will require much longer lectures, but much easier tests.

I don't think they were able to reattach it. But I did like that he is opposed to Medicare and this was the first time he'd used it because he had no other options. Apparently just letting his finger stump get gangrenous, as he apparently expects others to, or finding a neighbor willing to front him the money, was not an option.

He also admits he threw the first punch after being called an idiot and feeling his personal space was being invaded. I certainly don't condone fighting or biting off fingers, but **** happens in street fights.

We used to be a nuclear powerhouse, one of the most powerful countries in the world.

The political division we are seeing (from both sides) is going to leave us ripe for an invasion in a few decades.

JW -

As far as right-wing domestic terrorism, I think the last specific instance was the killing of an abortion doctor? I do know I condemned that and have condemned abortion clinic bombings. What specific right wong terrorism would you like me to condemn? I condemn all bombings, shootings, whatever, that are done for political motives.

I was not attempting to justify in the least anything said or done by the right wing by pointing out examples of similar things said or done by the left wing. My point was simply that those on the left wing that say and do similar things are never accused of inciting violence. Should an abortion clinic be bombed, there is typically an attempt to link that to those who speak out against abortion. Should a soldier blow up a grenade in the barracks, I am not aware of the attempt to link it to those on the left wing saying the Iraq was is illegal.

All such acts of violence are wrong and should be condemned. Anyone who decides that they can or should take matters into their own hands in such a matter is wrong and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Quite frankly, I'm rather disgusted with your implication that I find any act of terrorism acceptable, but hopefully this will clear it up.

Just curious - Why isn't it okay to have it discussed multiple times with different people? both in school and at home?

Are you afraid your child may come home with a viewpoint you don't agree with and you won't be able to "talk them out of it"?