Not sure what time it was when the bomb went off in Oklahoma City, but I know a daycare was part of the building destroyed; even if it wasn't nap time that doesn't really practically change the statements validity. It's a statistically negligible risk, yes, but the magnitude of that risk increases significantly in people completely oblivious to it.

There's plenty of information available about what's healthy; again, even 20-25 years ago when I was in middle and high school I got it in no less than three different health classes. The epidemic of unhealthy diets despite widely disseminated information on how to eat healthy doesn't exactly undermine my initial assertion that the kids are ignoring information necessary to their continued well being. Sugar addiction sounds a bit sketchy to me, no offense. Psychological dependence, maybe, but people are more likely to be bouncing off the walls when they ARE on sugar than when they're not. If there are sugar addicts out there, they have my sincere pity, because they're gonna remain "powerless over their addiction" quite literally till the day they die. Yes, sweet things are enjoyable; it's one of natures little ways of making us want something we need to survive. Yes, lots of people consume far more than they should, but "sugar addiction" and research seeking to prove it sounds more like an excuse for overindulging in something we need without having to take responsibility for that fact. Sugar addicts aren't out there carb loading to get their fix when grains are converted to sugars. Addiction is more than a lack of will power to refuse something you enjoy. An addict is someone whose body can't them say no, not who simply refuses to do so.

Then I would say you're not very far aware on how US home schooling is done then, and that the phrase "religious fanatic" is sometimes thrown about too loosely. If you haven't yet, you might compare the academic performance of US kids who are home schooled versus those who aren't; they may be religious fanatics, but they test better than kids in public and private schools. As to your other point, social interaction needn't be confined to school, and social growth will almost certainly be stunted if it is. If schools don't provide a quality education, should a parent who can sacrifice that to add to the social interaction their child should be getting outside of school anyway? As to the rest 1. I didn't say a womans place is in the home (though it certainly CAN be, and a woman without the CHOICE is equally unfree whatever path is forced upon her), I said the people who argue that most forcefully have done the most to make it untenable. 2. Having a baby doesn't automatically make anyone a skillful teacher, but if the professional teachers and educational system is woefully inadequate only a foolish woman would rely on them for her childs education if she could take charge of it herself.

We're kinda far afield here, but if the schools aren't adequate why wouldn't a responsible parent who could educate their own children do so? If they are adequate then kids with unhealthy diets and habits despite multiple health classes teaching them how to maintain both (and physical education classes and extracurricular sports assisting with the latter) are victims of precisely the willful ignorance I feared "Who is Osama bin Laden?" represents. Are they willfully ignorant, or do parents merely sacrifice their health for more social interaction in inferior schools that don't teach them how to maintain health (or much else)?