Fred has it right, it is case-by-case. If the two parents are willing to put the child first and provide a stable environment, then it is a good enough reason to get married.

If the parents have an inkling of what awaits a single parent household, hopefully they'll at least be full partners in the child's life. The loss of individual freedom, as some suggested, may cause some resentment, but taking the chance is a choice.

My students talked about it as if it were some kind of right and the inevitability of it. In a very uncomfortable conversation (for me), I asked them why. Why is it inevitable when you stop to consider consequences like the one proposed by this topic: possible marriage out of responsibility rather than affection and trust? "Because it just is." Hmm.

Okay, uneasy side note ended. Carry on.

When you talk about White House reporting, it may be important to separate editors and reporters. Reporters increasingly express a disgruntled attitude toward the White House, regardless of the organization they represent.

Their editors, in the meantime, continue to play a version of "Press Your Luck" where all their credibility could be washed away by the monolithic Whammy of a distrusting public.

There is no conspiracy of release dates here, a pattern emerged in the past week. Though many cried out about this pattern a long time ago, the scandals just got too big. Even those that refused to connect the dots a couple of months ago cannot ignore the breadth of the scandals, especially with the seizure of the AP records.

"Yes, 'Forward!' Even though I can't see where I'm going."

Did he have that thing parked in his yard? Where was the neighborhood association?!

Excellent rant, particularly your last two paragraphs. Thanks for punching this one out (if I may be so bold as to use violence-tinged language).

It comes up so rarely as an issue that I'm not sure if there is a liberal stance on this, and I can predict the reaction to this here, but I am against capital punishment. I accept its value as a deterrent, even accept that it may be necessary, but I do not believe it should be within the power of a government. Just one mistaken prosecution and someone pays the ultimate price for government bungling. Not acceptable in any way.

There apparently have been at least 39 such cases. I haven't looked at any individual cases, it's the principle that bothers me. That and I couldn't reconcile my feelings about abortion and taking a pro-capital punishment stance.

Well, I'll point out to the early commenters that Hercules killed his wife and son in a fit of rage. That was why he had to redeem himself performing the labors. So heroes did not always represent an ideal even in ancient Greece.

Why do we like them? Because for a long time the heroes of the comics fought for principles. What drove Spider-Man in his pitched battle with Firelord that, as I recall, lasted through several issues? He was defending his city and his people, particularly his loved ones. There is another point therein: these heroes so often fought beyond their capabilities because they stood for something.

Like him or not, Joss Whedon illustrated this beautifully in the movieSerenity. The immediate problem in the movie? Governmental overreach, trying to create a "perfect" world. I'd argue the Firefly series is based around a main character whose ideals about liberty make one think of an American Revolution that failed.

One of my favorite comic moments was the death of Barry Allen (The Flash) in the Crisis of Infinite Earths. Heroes often affirm that life (especially) and liberty are of such great value they are worth great sacrifice.

Here it is: instead of feeling like we were going nowhere, suddenly, we saw opportunity; Instead of feeling run down, we felt energized; Instead of feeling dark about the future, we were optimistic.

The first day I sat in Civics class in 1987, our teacher told us we'd be the first generation to have a decline in our standard of living. The comment failed to penetrate, none of us believed it. Had it been 1977, we would have accepted it because the signs were all around us. In 1987, the game had changed.

Then the stock market had its worst day since 1929. Didn't matter. People believed in the future and continued to trade the following week. The Dow came back. Little or no panic.

Though I didn't have to deal with the taxes, the interest rates, or the inflation, I remember all of that and what it felt like. It felt numb. It felt like everyone was giving in to something. 

So much of what moves an economy is perception. Reagan's upbeat messages and his policies lifted us all. Thankfully, I still have difficulty picturing him without a smile.

The last part of the note:

It is about time to fix their avaricious and ridiculous attitude. My opinion is that South Korea & America must not listen whatever PRK says. Horrible dictatorship should be halted. The process of unification must not be easy , however, in order to rescue the all citizens suffering from starvations and violationa of human rights. Our (ROK&USA) resolute and stern attitude is required.

From a former student (verbatim, he apologizes for his diminished English skills in a part I left out) in Seoul (two posts). Keep in mind he's 20 or 21 years-old:

Well, outside of Korea, people may think the situation is becoming more and more severe because the medias are announcing some stupid threats Kim jung un says. However, all south Koreans are so used to these kind of circumstances so theres not much diffrence in my daily routine.

Alliance between America and South Korea is still strong and our army is always ready to fight against them. Its bit tiring to react all provocations from North Korea but oh well, they are just crazy. As you can see, Kim and his governors are like little babys whining to feed them more rice, iron, all resources they need for free. However, 60 years of our korean history tells us that helping them never brought a positive result. They endlessly want more when we give them what they need.

A former student of mine is from Pusan and living in the ROK now. I wrote multiple recommendations for him and will try to contact him tomorrow. Oh, and his Dad was Special Forces, if my memory is correct. He may have some unique insight.

I got the same knife from my Grandpa, probably around 1983, just a couple of years before he died. His father told him, "A man is not a man without a pocket knife." I've never tried to sharpen it and took to carrying a the camping model Swiss Army knife, which I put to good use. Sorry, no help, but thanks for stirring up good memories.

Mike, it's a good point to bring up. I can't speak for others, but the point I was trying to make is the transitory nature of scientific knowledge. There wasn't enough room to spell that out in detail. I'm not anti-science. I love learning. I also do not take any particular scientific investigation as absolute. It is rare that there would be only one to point to, in any case, and still rarer that any two studies would reach identical conclusions.

Finally, I'm keenly aware that when there are advances in knowledge, they often do not occur within an established framework. The mistake we make is thinking that knowledge in any particular field advances in a linear fashion. More often, the line is broken and a new one started, old assumptions tossed out. But there is danger in that as well, because even in discarded theories and practices, there may be a key element that points the way forward.

That's just my way of saying stay open-minded about UFO's. (winking emoticon)

Agree with everything you said, and it is easy not to turn the lessons on yourself, but rather, to think you're above it all.

I recall the fear when someone revealed my politics when I was working in Chicago. Prior to that, I had taken great pains to scrub party references in my resume even though it was the bulk of my experience prior to that job. Though I never engaged in anything like debate, I did question poorly-constructed arguments. That was enough for someone to figure it out or assume it.

From that point on, I was often challenged. It sharpened my communication skills and even changed my positions on a few things. You refine specific arguments because you expect them to be challenged. It was, without doubt, a great benefit. I like to think at the very least that I expanded a few others' perspectives. Sometimes a planted seed doesn't grow for many years.

Look, folks, the way you approach someone in trying to convince them is important. I was doing all this partially to illustrate a communication problem we have on our side. I posted on the idea of this right after the election and it made it to the main feed.

What most of you haven't understood is that I agree with you in terms of the general principle. You've gotten so wrapped up in specifics, however, that you're pushing me away from your viewpoint, not toward it.

We tend to do this on issues important to us. Issues that we take for granted that someone understands the basic parts of it as we do. The problem going forward, is that we need to recognize when they don't and, instead of dismissing them, meet them where they are.

Our side (conservative or libertarian) is not going anywhere unless we convince others to join up.

For the record, Doc, I'm sure my sister-in-law would back you 100%. Thanks for sparring.

Doc, there you go again. What I'm trying to get all of you to do is approach the other side as if there is some validity. None of you have even tried. The only person I've seen actually try on this issue was Rob Long.

I received much the same treatment from a friend who felt he had to preach to me this week about a particular issue in the news. My reaction was the same: how can we have a discussion when I'm dismissed before it starts?

Scared, Doc? No, I'm angry. But not, apparently, as angry as you and others in this thread. Can't there be dissent from a majority opinion? People make different choices. Immunizations are temporary, ineffective, and quite frankly, if you do not think there are powerful lobbies behind them, you're "non sensical." What I'm pleased about is how the companies have responded to market concerns.

Finally, I'll try one more time explaining to you that we are not against immunization, we just didn't want them sticking our kids as early as they wanted to. We're part of 13% of all parents that do this.