My friend k.d. finds the discussion of labels as counterproductive. With freeman saying "I am freeman" and Ian talking about "Ianism," et al, I think the conversation has drifted towards k.d.'s assertion that he is a "Popeye" - "I am what I am." I really like that thought. So often we make assumptions based on labels.

My observation that an individual human life begins at conception and that every human being has certain "unalienable" rights, for example, has led more than one person to assume that I want to see laws that ban abortion and punish abortionists, or that I have no compassion or feelings for the mothers who seek abortion, or that religious beliefs are at the root of my observation, or that I must believe in the death penalty and am therefore a hypocrite. All of those assumptions are attached to the label "pro-life," and all are wrong about me. Labels don't simplify conversation, they obfuscate and misdirect conversation.

In no way does my approach to life exactly match any other individual's. There are ways in which my philosophy or political beliefs might resemble my neighbors' beliefs, and certainly I'm more comfortable among friends who share many of my beliefs, but there's no such thing as a perfect match. I mention the abortion question because it's an area where I am more likely than not to disagree with my fellow freedom bloggers, which makes it a good example of why one word or one label cannot summarize a group. Labels are convenient when talking about groups, no doubt, but pretty close to useless when talking about or to an individual. I'm not even sure it's usually helpful to lump individuals together in groups.

I am what I am; I like that response. In the final analysis, we're all Popeyes.