I really hoping I'm missing some sarcasm in your post.

On the chance that you aren't kidding....

For me to have these memories going back as far as I can remember means my dad was pretty flippin involved. He took me with him to vote as soon as I was old enough to know to be quiet in the voting area and not yell "why are you voting for ________". I think I was 4 or 5.

I am arguing that sheltering kids so they only get "mom and dad's perspective on life" is not preparing their child for the path, they are expecting the path to be prepared for their child, or their child to change the path so it meets their needs without understanding the bumps, curves and other paths they may encounter along the way.

We all work to change the path to meet our needs. We also understand that we will meet roadblocks, bumps and curves and sometimes we have to bend with it, and sometimes we have to wait until the block comes down and sometimes we decide that another path is better.

Now. Joe Wilson. What he did was rude, it was not the place or time for it.

That said, the left-side manufactured outrage is silly to watch too. Over the last few years I saw several times it seriously batted around that the president should be required to submit to a British parliament-style questions session before congress every so often. The sole purpose for wanting such a things seems to have been so that President Bush could be heckled (nobody ever seemed to think it would actually accomplish anything useful, though it did highlight how little most people understand the different between our system of government and parliamentary systems).

What the hell are you talking about? Am I speaking a different language? What part of understanding they might not think the same way I do when they're older didn't you understand? Did I say it was a bad thing?

To answer a few different questions, I am not afraid my children may end up with different opinions than me. What scared me was the thought that, while my children are young, the morals and values of their teacher - or anyone else for that matter - should be considered as more important (or equally so) to mine. That is what scares me.

I remember the Democrats clapping inappropriately during Bush's State of the Union speech when he brought up how they stopped his Social Security plans. Half of me frowned at what Wilson did, half of me smiled, same with the clapping.

I don't know very much about the parliamentary system, I admit. But I do like watching the spontaneous back and forth. It's refreshing to see that than a polished, practiced speech. It's like doing improv, you have to think fast and honesty comes out of that lots of times.

I wasn't trying to dodge your earlier question of me. In all likelihood I missed it as there has been a lot posted here in a short period of time.

I suppose i can't really disagree with your second point. Yes, at a young age, I am concerned about a teacher directly contradicting my moral leanings. Even political leanings. I don't see that as problematic. Once they get to a point of being able to debate and defend and reconsider abstract thought, I do not have a problem with it. I don't see that as unreasonable.

I do not think I moved the goal posts. I think early on (perhaps not my first post on the subject after someone else brought his school speech into the thread) I mentioned my problem with both. After I read the speech, I clearly stated I no longer had a problem with the speech in and of itself.

New thoughts an new ideas in a newspaper article? I'm not sure why you think I would object to that. What you described would be reading facts and summarizing. Even if it were an op ed, I would suspect my child would be doing such as homework and would be discussing it with me (I help my kids with their homework and review it every night).

Why do you even let them out of your house to spend a day with these people if you think their moral are so utterly different than yours and abhorrent that they stand a chance of permanently scarring your children.

Wilson was inappropriate and directed the debate away from the plan to how he was inappropriate. He was right to apologize, but the spin on this being something completely new is disingenuous at best.

I don't know how to respond to such a ridiculous extrapolation of what I've been writing.

I don't get the paranoia about exposing your kids to other ideas, values, cultures, religions, other than my own. Maddie's Algebra teacher is Muslim (and I only know this because she wears the full headscarf etc). I have no issue with her being in her class. Maybe she will learn something about another country and religion. If her teachers were to tell her something I don't belive in, then we have a discussion about that's one way to look at it but here's how I see it.

But in essence isn't that what you are saying by sending them to a certain school? I mean, private schools thrive on money from people who send kids there because the teachers have the same set of morals and values they have.

But I must say, even at a Catholic school here in Hawai'i, I had teachers who had moral leanings that were directly opposite from the church's. I felt more well rounded because of what I learned from all of them. I picked and chose what I agreed with and what I didn't agree with. Don't all kids do that?