2008, I believe.

Yeah, that underaged little turncoat against his own generation and American liberties needs to get voted out.  And by a decisive and humiliating margin.

The way to do that is to (somehow) keep the slate of school board candidates as short as possible.

First of all, there are a growing number of Democrats who are openly pro-life and/or moderate as it pertains to a balance between pro-life and pro-choice issues.  It's no longer only a Repubican issue.  Second, there are those on both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice debate with hidden agendas, I don't think it's fair to use the same broad stroke to portray their motives.  After all, as mortals, we can only speculate about the motives of others, we can never really be certain.  Even Freud fell far short of being able to wholly understand unconscious processes.  I suggest we listen to the concerns of folks on both sides and they try to come up with an approach that is moderate---one that takes into consideration salient factors on both sides of the argument. 

That's exactly why I need to unmask the truth about the Religious Right's "pro-life" agenda -- so that sincere pro-lifers with a moderate and realistic agenda know that voting "conservative values" won't take them where they want to go.

What is the hidden agenda of the pro-choice movement, BLT?  I know, I know, it's that pesky "freedom" thing again. 

.

We've got an approach that is moderate.  It's called "Roe v. Wade."  *WITHIN* that framework there are steps we can take to reduce the need for abortion.  They're called "contraception," "education," and "Plan B."

.

Hardliner, I'm with you on the KHSD thing.  Two open offices, two candidates opposing Vegas.

And one of my big points is that many of the so-called moral codes that they're trying to impose aren't spelled out in the Bible at all.

Find me one Biblical teaching that prohibits open, frank -- even graphic -- discussion of human sexuality issues.  Can't be done.

Find me one Biblical teaching that prohibits sex education -- with full color and unedited illustrations.  Can't be done.

BTW, Doc, if it helps me avoid wrongfully implicating sincere, realistic pro-lifers (like, um, me?), I added the word "conservative" in quotes in the first paragraph, because in today's political lingo, candidates who trumpet their "conservative pro-family" agenda do, in every case, represent the agenda that I criticize.

I don't want earnest defenders of the unborn to buy that Trojan Horse.

Random wrote, "We've got an approach that is moderate.  It's called "Roe v. Wade."  *WITHIN* that framework there are steps we can take to reduce the need for abortion.  They're called "contraception," "education," and "Plan B."

Don't forget attitudinal changes in our culture on the topic of sexuality -- specifically, abolishing all vestiges of prudery.

Adam, I don't think it's a "leftist" viewpoint to advocate being objective and unafraid of sex.  Unfortunately, our political culture makes it into one.

What most party-affiliated people don't realize is that the enemy is not the party they oppose but extreme elements of each party.  What is the hidden agenda of pro-choicers?  I wouldn't want to speculate on that any more than I would want to speculate on what supposed hidden agenda of pro-lifers is.   Moreover, the problem with the infringement of freedom argument which is used equally by both sides, is that freedom for one group automatically infringes are freedom for another group.  That is why it's best to create forums in which both sides come together to generate ideas that optimally address the salient issues on both sides of the argument.  Access to education on sexual issues is a touchy subject because parents have individual preferences for the way they want their children educated on the matter.  They don't want teachers injecting their own biases onto the subject matter.  It's a delicate issue and we need to also create forums in which parents can have more input into the education of their children. 

Ah, but you *DID* speculate on it.  You said it existed. 

.

I don't want teachers injecting their own biases *AGAINST* sex either.  It's like the arguments by those who don't like evolution that teachers would teach kids "there is no God," when they have no problem with (and vociferously defend) teachers who teach that there *IS* a God.

Random, I don't think assuming that people have biases is speculation.  We all know that biases exist.  What is not so common is the ability to read people's biases and to have definitive knowledge about the nature of their biases and their hidden agendas.   Your second point is a valid one.  If parents don't want teachers to impose their bias on students, it should, ideally work both ways.  Dusty, I am not against giving parents a choice of whether or not students should be allowed to participate in such an educational process, as long as some kind of plan is implemented whereby the students would not be made into spectacles for not participating. 

Doc, I think we can avoid injecting biases into sex education, if we accept one stipulation that really isn't that controversial:

Facts and bias are not the same thing.

The problem that I am calling attention to is that certain people are biased against exposing kids to any factual information on sexuality at all.  This arises, of course, from my other charge: these same certain people are frantically afraid of honestly discussing sexuality itself.

But then again, we really aren't debating pro-life issues any more, are we.

Thus my point, that the "conservative pro-family" agenda isn't really primarily about abortion at all, is made.

As for my ability to read people's agendas, you can take my word for it on this particular issue, or wait for my legendary "I told you so."  :-)

Dusty asked, "BLT, how on earth can giving people a choice infringe on the right of the religious folks?"

What they basically mean is this:

The right of doctors to refuse to perform treatments or give prescriptions that conflict with their religious beliefs;

The right of business owners and managers to refuse to hire people based solely on religious dogma, such as the right to refuse to hire (or rent to) gays or an unmarried person who lives with another of the opposite sex.

Stated more succinctly, they want the "freedom" to use any position of power, control, or decision-making authority they may possess, to punish people who live their lives in ways that they disapprove of.

Mattloch wrote, "Hardliner, what about bus inesses who don't want to distribute certain medications? "

.

That's another excellent example.  Thank you for reminding me of that one.

 BTW, your second link doesn't work.  The first one, pertaining to (not surprised) Wal-Mart, worked fine.

Dusty, are you saying that compassion and sensitivity should be reserved for those who agree with your position on things?  Mattloch, I was hoping you would be more creative than I seem to be at the moment with a plan for protecting children from being singled out. 

As far as flunking out on the evolution portion of a class is concerned, you may be underestimating the intelligence of students who believe in creation.  Most have a keen understanding of who is generally credited with the theory of evolution, the details concerning the theory, and the problems associated with the theory. 

Now if the questions are stated in a biased manner, such as "Did the universe come about through the process of evolution or creation?" with the correct answer being "evolution," then this question has no place on an exam because it forces the worldview of the teacher upon the student.    

Dusty, try this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stor...

I think we found another blog bug.  The blog inserts the %20 in the "shtml".  Mouse over it and see.

To read it, right-click the link, do "copy shortcut," paste it in a browser, and manually remove the "%20" from the "shtml" near the end of the URL.

I passed on news of the bug to the "2.0 Bug" blog page.

You see the little yellow info box that appears and displays the URL when you mouse over the link?

It's inserting a space in the URL at the point where the yellow box breaks the URL (which is too long for the box).

The article that you're unable to read is a story about Wal-Mart reversing its policy against stocking the "morning after" pill.

Doc asked, "So let me make sure I understand you correctly Hardliner.  Are you saying extremists with hidden agendas can only be found on the side of this issue that you disagree with? "

Wel, Doc, find me some examples of extremists on the other side, and what their agenda is, and we can discuss them.

Nice way of putting it, Doc.  That's why I want the people who insist on the us-vs.-them orientation, driven out of power.

It's not us-vs.-them on my part to warn others to steer away from such an intense us-vs-them political agenda.

I, too, think we can find points to agree upon and support policies that reflect them.  Step #1 is to disempower people who have no intention of finding common ground with anyone.

Think of it this way:

A certain faction in this country has declared "culture war" on me -- and millions of other Americans.

We didn't ask for this culture war, any more than we asked to be attacked on 9/11 (insane remarks by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on 9/13 notwithstanding).

We are the "them" in this "culture war" that we didn't ask for.

It isn't "us-vs-them" to warn voters of the "culture warriors" who see us as the "them" in their "us-vs-them" world.

Gotta go for a while, so please don't interpret my failure to respond further right now to be anything unethical.

I don't think you drive people like that out of party, I think you persuade them to seek middle ground.   If they are too stubborn and set in their ways, you have to wait until the next election, and simply cast your vote. 

Dusty, you seem to be advocating for giving people choices only as it pertains to actions you regard as morally acceptable and legitimate.   Everybody draws the line at a different point in terms of what they regard as morally acceptable and what they regard as morally reprehensible.  So should we only give people choices in those areas you identify as morally legitimate? 

Re: the problem with links not working in the above comments--fyi we've found that if a URL is longer than the text box of the Rich Text Editor's add/edit link feature, then a space gets inserted where the box ends, making the link unfollowable.  Long story short, we're working on it, but wanted to let you know that it doesn't affect all URL links.  You could even use something like TinyURL as a stop-gap.

Check out my blog for bug updates and to report others, or e-mail me directly.

BLT, you said "agenda," Latin, "things which must be done."  Then you changed it to "bias."  I freely admit that the pro-choice side has a bias against the agenda kept hidden by the anti-choice side.  

.

Hardliner, you're quite right about the declaration of war.  Us freedom-lovin' atheists don't want to tell anyone how to worship in their own churches.  We just ask that they keep it off the streets.  If we win, they get to keep their beliefs.  If they win, we don't.  It's win-win for them, and win-lose for us.   Compassion and sensititivy should be reserve for those willing to show it to others.