tigermoth comments

I stated that my children would not - you don't know them so please do not presume to tell me what my children would in fact do. They would not. They would come home and eat crap. Neither are obese incidentally

Oh give me a friggin break. We don't need government regulations or the forcing of better eating habits. I have two boys - if the lunches were 'whole grain' they would not eat them, plain and simple. The problem isn't the nutrition (or any lack thereof) of school lunches but the fact that our techno-geek world has made everything so easy, and entertainment so reliant upon electronic stimulus that people are lazy and ergo fat. Anyone over the age of 40 can clearly see the differences in their own upbringing compared to kids today. It sounds like the 'old man' saying 'why, I remember in my day...' - but it's fundamentally true. We ate crap as kids - no health foods at all. I was addicted to Twinkies. But I was skinny as a rail as were most of my friends. We burned off calories running about like loons, playing, building forts, hiking and swimming in local streams and rivers, walking everywhere that we wanted to go. Instead today we have Playstation, X-box, iPads - kids don't go play with friends, they text them and chat on Facebook. Don't blame the Republicans; this is a society/technology created world of the fat and un-toned.

Much ado about nothing. I'm not a supporter, but who gives a flying rat's backside if The President flubbed a toast, wrote a wrong date, if George choked on a Pretzel - whatever. Presidents are not infallible but rather normal human beings - given an awesome responsibility yes - but subject to a harmless misstep like the rest of us. I hang on the right, but calling him on it seems rather petty and childish. Best not to stoop to the level of former President's detractors.

We don't fight with the neighboring group to the point of bloodshed and inability to govern. - I said that above, which should be qualified with something like 'in the main'

The article alludes to Ireland remaining neutral during the Second World War, but it should be rightfully pointed out that many a proud Irishman served in HM Forces during the war. From men like Paddy Finucane in the Battle of Britain to the Irish Guards fighting in Holland and occupied Europe, they were not all welcoming Herr Hitler as the article sort of implies.

Ok but lets look at why this is happening. Could it have something to do with the US approach to dealing with the terrorist issue. How many civilians has the US and its western allies killed in the pursuit of their war on terrorism and even before that (Iraq, Somalia, support of Israel etc). How many houses and lively hoods destroyed. Unfortunately this is not new, during the Vietnam war the US managed to get the very people it was protecting offside and had them helping the enemy by forced relocations, bombing villages, indiscriminant killing etc. And it seems they never learnt from that. The US military is the US militaries worst enemy when it comes to winning over the population and people wonder why they loose the support of the population and end up with these extremest views flourishing.

AdamB - Yes, we should have learned well after Vietnam that 'winning the hearts and minds' of the people isn't really practical. The promise of democracy is not a war winner when the nation in conflict doesn't really understand or want this necessarily. Killing civilians is bad mojo - well, killing anyone is - unless they openly deserve it (OSB, Hitler, Stalin, et al).

The problem that you do not address here is that prior to 9/11 extremist efforts - while yes often directed at the innocent rather than the military - were small enough in scale to warrant limited response. When thousands of innocent US civilians were killed in attacks on NY, and then with the attacks elsewhere, these extremists had to know and understand they were taking the game to a new level; they chose this path. Osama chose this path and helped lead them happily down it, Kalashnikovs blazing away happily into the air at the news of it. If their aims were to get the US and the west out of Arab/Muslim affairs - and out of their countries - how did they reason that attacking NY and civilians in other cities might achieve this goal? It didn't take genius to figure US response.

Just as winning the hearts and minds doesn't work, neither does terrorism, and history has pretty much proven this.

I'm not certain I even understand the argument that these terrorists want the west out of their countries - except for religious purposes of course. I don't know family history, but isn't OBL's family rich from the oil industry (i.e. selling to the west)? Why don't they target and kill the oil sheiks who make untold fortunes off selling oil to the west while the rest of the population lives in third world poverty? And conversely to that, if the US and the west did indeed find another source of energy and leave the middle east to its own devices, it would be nothing but a backward third world shite-hole (except Israel because they make it all work with their 'evil' western ways - and possibly a few other nations who can make it work). They would still hate us likely, but without western investment and assistance, where would they be? Would it be a peaceful utopia and Muslim heaven of the warm desert sands, nomadic herdsmen, exotic oasis of Arabian elegance that supposedly existed before western interference? I doubt it.

And besides all that, you seem to excuse away terrorist action because of US and western action. We interfered in Palestine, so therefore it's justified to bring Jihad on the evil west and kill civilians. You say the US shouldn't do what the terrorists do, but it seems somehow okay that they do the same thing. A confusing and viscous cycle. I would counter that there was trouble in the middle east well before western imperialism came to play, and there would be trouble if we left.

My point with the school thing was to illustrate that in too many areas hate is being taught as doctrine, not learned from experience. How do we peacefully combat that - and with no civilian casualties? Do you put your head in the sand and hope it all goes away? Children taught to hate America and taught how to serve Allah and Islam with a suicide vest full of TNT is a real and tangible threat. Whether this was created by US action now becomes not the immediate issue - dealing with the danger and action created by this hate fostered by radical Islam becomes the immediate concern. Killing the symbolic head is a first step in removing the cancer.

In the end, it's easy to just say that 'if the US abandons its policies in the ME and stops its horrible invasions and war on terrorism, then the terrorism itself will lose cause and momentum'. But your confusing rationalism and natural cause and effect with radical religious fervor which has no rationality or logic. How do you logically stop a thought process that firmly believes that killing is their god's will? You ask us to combat insanity with rational logic, and that's as futile as the 'hearts and minds' theory. It's not pretty, PC or a benchmark of humanity to say that sometime logic comes from the barrel of a gun - but as long has humanity is flawed, it does.

After all l thought the US worked on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Or doesn't that count.

I suppose that's true of course - but when you release statements and videos proudly stating that you and your cause carried out these acts against the 'evil USA' aren't you pretty much confessing? Hard to convince with the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing when the killer confesses and hides out for almost a decade.

Funny, if this were 65 years ago or so and the OSS managed to get a team in to kill Hitler, there would be world celebration and medals for all. I seriously doubt whether anyone would give two hoots whether or not he was holding a Luger when they kicked down the door and put a round right in that ridiculous mustache.

The squeamish need to make a choice here. Modern technology has allowed radical extremist groups - specifically Muslim in this case - the ability to strike throughout the world basically at their discretion, and the targets are every-day folks like you and me. The history and root causes of it all are interesting study, but irrelevant to a large degree in practicality. [and by that I mean as example other than slight association with corporate America and the 'Capitalist West' the workers in the Twin Towers for instance had little to do with actively oppressing Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians - whatever the pet gripe. An immigrant mopping the men's room on the upper floors of Tower 1 for example is hardly a worthy example of American imperialism].

If you are Western - you're a target whether you like it or not. And whether or not you believe that George Bush, big oil or the British Empire is root cause if it all, it matters little. The radical Muslim Jihadist does not think like you - accept that. Whether or not you think 'we're unfair to them and I can understand their cause and sympathize' - they hate you because you're western. There was a recent report on a small neighborhood school in Afghanistan; the Imam was teaching the kids to hate America and American, and Westerners in general. He freely admitted it - and the kids all hated the west and firmly believed in death to every American and westerner. This wasn't some special school, but rather typical in such neighborhoods. They will indiscriminately blow you up and kill you, whether or not your some liberal type who claims to 'understand'.

My point. Well, you either understand the above and realize that things like putting a bullet between Osama's eyes and throwing his corpse in the sea was a necessary step in showing radical Islam that if you screw with us we will hunt you down and kill you, and dismantle your organizations - and you actually do this in practice without whining about American civil law applied to international terrorists, or you ask for their list of demands and fulfill them all, turn in your Christian, Buddhist, atheist, whatever 'card', and get out your bikes because we might run out of oil.

I do find it amusing that since the US has tried to be a 'true' democracy (impossible I think) the rest of the world tries to hold us firmly to that and criticizes at every point when we react out of necessity, yet holds no such standards to those who transgress against us. They ultimately become the victims in the world's eye and we the evil empire. Oh but the hands go out for foreign aid from the evil west, don't they?

True Yabits, and I would agree that only an idiot would still think he's not an American citizen. But an interesting question - you point out that of course he was a serving U.S. Senator - do they check such things when you're elected to the senate? Is there anywhere along the course of a politician's career that one must show certificate of birth? Or is it that if you have a SS card/# and can vote then there never really is a check? I'm not saying there's any controversy here except that invented by those who don't like him - just a curios question for the U.S. political process. I've never run for office nor given enough of a crap to give something like that credence of thought. But the fact that you can illegally buy 'credentials' - SS cards, DL's etc, then it at minimum poses a curious question.

Still for me as someone who doesn't like the man nor his politics - and nothing to do with his citizenship, race etc but rather his actual politics - I'd rather form argument against him based upon his inabilities as President rather than ridiculously trying to prove he's not a citizen. He sinks himself rather nicely on performance alone.

While it is idiotic, for those that say 'why should he be asked for his birth certificate - has every President been asked?'. Well, if they have not then they should. And it should not have been made such a big production to not do so previously. Hey, I can't even count how many times I've had to produce either mine or my kid's birth certificates for various things (school, passports, etc.). He's not alone nor unique so why not just get it done in the first place? I would counter that in our democracy where any Tom, Dick, Harry or Jane can run for the highest office in the land, that showing one's birth certificate shouldn't be such a shocker. I have to show my ID when cashing a check or supermarket card to get 50 cents off a roll of TP, so what was the big deal in the first place? I look much younger than I am; when the store clerks used to ID me for beer (long gone) I didn't say no that's none of your business - I just showed them my ID. It should never been allowed to fester.

The part that really gets me is this quote in the article:

The president’s personal counsel, Judith Corley, traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane.

So wait a friggin' minute - his personal assistant uses tax payer dollars to fly to Hawaii to pick up a piece of paper?? I just got my pay raise at work - it amounts to a stellar $35 every two weeks; not enough for a tank of gas in my Hyundai. But these A-holes in DC are flying folks - likely on personal jets - to pick up piece of paper??? And yes, I know Democrat/Republican - it doesn't matter on this as they all do it. Perhaps instead of a tea party we simply need simple way for the taxpaying citizens to to curb moronic spending. I get two weeks of vacation per year and can afford about four or five days; those who govern us should be allowed no more.

Sorry, off-topic rant; but the article statement got me going. We need to stop worrying about dirty politics and birth certificates and start worrying about where our money is going, and where it should be going.

I'll bet Israel is a pretty place. I genuinely do like the people, at least those I've met. Like you probably do, I think all religions are a crock to a large degree; simply a tool designed to promote fear and keep the masses in line (and their pocketbooks open). But some of them at least seem a bit more harmless and promote reasonable values.

I’m not Jewish and have no vested interest, except obviously being with the rest of the civilized world in being way-tired of hearing about the Middle-East and their apparent inability to settle differences and live peacefully. This isn’t a new problem that developed after 1948; Arab and Jew have never gotten along or been a friend of the other (nor have the different Arab groups/sects/tribes – whatever friends amongst themselves for that matter).

I would even go so far as to agree with those critical of the Balfour decision and the establishment the Israeli state at the extent of those Palestinians living on the land at the time. The West essentially used its influence and might to force this on the Arab world. Put in the reverse we wouldn’t be so content to accept this.

But the fundamental problem is that Arab and Jew hate each other, always have and always will. If you establish a Palestinian state and give them half of Jerusalem as their capital there will be forever fighting between the two over every square inch and who controls what. No matter of give and take will work until one is gone.

So what should be done? Well I happen to be a fan of Israel and Jewish culture to a degree. Why? Well, they seem quite ‘westernized’ and at least do not by physical acts of terrorism or wanton force wish to spread Zionist rule throughout the globe. They seem content enough to be Jews and promote that within their own community. I haven’t heard of any Rabbis telling their congregation to kill the infidel. I live in NY and haven’t seen any Hassidic Jews strapped with explosives trying to blow up our landmarks because we are the ‘evil Western Satan’. I doubt that if someone draws a cartoon of Abraham that they will have their throat cut in the streets.

We have some desert land out in the Western part of the U.S. that I believe is rather sparsely populated. Let’s call it the State of Israel and bring them all here lock, stock and barrel. Yes, they would divorced from lands that have been sacredly holy for thousands of years. But doesn’t there come a time when fruitful and happy living trumps some old rocks and sand that your ancestors trod upon for thousands of years? It’s a win-win situation. ‘Winning’ to quote Charley Sheen. They have a kick-ass army that we could most certainly use. Combine ours with theirs and it would be an amazing force. We could easily co-exist. They could have their own land, we could have an influx of people that would add culturally, intellectually and spiritually with the American experience.

I think it’s a great plan; Palestine gets their land back, Israel gets a state, lots of people lose a strong bitching point in world politics. Then the Arabs themselves can start fighting over dirt, rocks and sand and it can be their own affair.

By the way - does anyone think he looks like Prince?

That any of you know who he is - or care - is telling. I thought all of you brave and noble supporters of the left were too busy righting the world's wrongs and taking care of the down-trodden to worry about some sod prancing about in the wealthy and useless world of high fashion.

should say 'hick sheriff and liberal media are psychologists...

What is utter madness is that anyone is trying to tie an instance of political rhetoric, cross hairs on a poster - whatever - as the reasons that this guy did what he did. All of the sudden everyone, including some hick sheriff and a lot of the liberal media, and psychologists and psychiatrists? David Berkowitz (son of sam) heard a dog talking to him, Charles Manson misinterpreted something he read to indicate that a race war was necessary. Should we blame dogs, or should we blame some text written for a whole different purpose simply because someone with a mental illness misinterpreted them? I believe it's likely a symptom of the schizophrenia or whatever mental issues this guy was suffering from. An acquaintance of mine has a mentally ill son who thinks the CIA is following him, and recently tried to kill his own father. Is that the CIA's fault? Come on folks, we can do better than this. It was a tragedy committed by a misguided kid suffering from a mental illness - nothing more. Very tragic yes, but caused by someone's words?

So I guess it is Marlyn Manson's fault if some kid listens to one of his songs and kills someone. It was laughable when Michael Moore placed the idea before Manson in 'Bowling for Columbine' though asserted after that tragedy. I'm sure many of those on the left thought that notion ridiculous, as any sane person would. It's a dangerous road to travel if you want to assert that anything said by anyone with a public voice can incite such violence.

LFRAgain don't get me wrong - I have no issues with or moral hangups with the Kennedy clan. Their personal doings are just that. The moral indignation by the religious freaks and too many on the right are not my forte. Well, one must temper that with a certain amount of clarification. The Presidency of the US is a bit more important with a higher degree of heavy responsibility than most any other profession on the planet, so a certain moral fortitude can and should be expected. But boffing Marlyn Monroe on the Presidential yacht doesn't concern me so much. JFK had honor and bravery and I can admire the man. I think his presidency has been glossed over due to the tragedy of his death - by that I mean it wasn't anything stellar or any great 'Camelot'. He didn't have that much time to do very much, and the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs are hardly things to really be proud of. Teddy I do have an issue with. Yes, he spent his life I think trying to atone for his mistakes - but it says something about a person when they get loaded, drive off a bridge with a girlfriend in the car and make no effort to get her out or even report it right away. Image and getting caught meant more than human life. Just saying - my opinion.

The question would be was the series more true to life (too true to life) and cut because someone with influence thought it would slander the family, or was it just slanderous rubbish. If the latter then it should have been squashed. I'm just against the 'prettying up of history' for reputation's sake.

I'm very far from being a fan of the President, and usually at odds with the liberals on here. But I have to disagree; I thought the President did an ample job of speaking to a national sadness at such a tragedy, and correct in summary that as a nation that is supposed to be 'one, united in overall belief and cause' has let itself devolve into nothing short of acting like unruly children fighting on a playground. While many point to the cheering and at some points almost jubilation amongst the attendees, I rather liked that tone. Some see a funeral as a celebration of life rather than a mouring of death, or some combination of both. I think in this case, in such an event that proved so tragic and costly, it was a way of healing; of celebrating the spirit of those who were murdered and the brave woman fighting for her life. Forget that she's a democrat for party matters not - she's a bright and vibrant human being and the fact that she could live and recover from such an onslaught tends to make the human spirit jubilant. Sorry, don't mean to sound philosophical as I'm far from the wise sage.

Having said that, while I think the President seemed quite genuine in his speech, he has been a key player in the divide that has become so turbulent. His disdain for those on the right has hardly been concealed and the forcing through of unpopular legislation hardly a salve. And the venom that still flies on here (and will after my comments) is a testimonial that despite the mouth-play it will not end so easily. Frankly, and sadly, I think the old days of flag waving and pulling together for common cause (the Second World War a prime example) are long gone, and as such the dichotomy and the strong emotions caused by the rift in political philosophies is only going to get worse.

But put it all in perspective. The shooter was a sick man likely suffering from schizophrenia and quite delusional. It might have been politics that set him off, but it could have just as easily been a belief that his neighbors were space aliens coming to get him. Mental illness is just that, trying to assign a rational reasoning and thus condemning political rhetoric seems rather silly.

The History Channel is hardly the scholarly accurate bastion that some seem to think, so why should this series be treated any differently? Is it because the ugly truth of the vaunted Kennedy clan is, well, ugly? Historical fiction is more the norm than the exception by any film makers in the US. Are we finally coming to the conclusions that the American public is indeed too dense to realize that films about historical people or events are rarely true to the actual history portrayed? Is it because the left cannot tolerate any smearing of their political gods? Let's ignore JFK's trysts with MM or that Teddy left some woman for dead in a drunken stupor. THEY are American royalty after all!

A life dedicated to public service by a family does not make them devoid of the corruption and debauchery that such power, wealth and privilege brings. It likely would have been a sucky mini-series anyway, but to not show it because some liberal Kennedy supporters didn't like it seems a poorly excuse to me.

'on the but' should be on the bus of course. Although I was on by butt on the bus.

While I do not doubt that many are jobless and the whole unemployment thing a horrible mess, I also wonder what percent cannot find jobs, and what percent will not take the jobs that are available. And this has much to do with our society and the undeniable fact that Americans (myself very much included) are somewhat spoiled and entitled in this day and age. What I'm getting at is - what is the actual jobless rate due to people not being able to find a job, as compared to the jobless rate where people simply will not take the jobs that are available because they involve undesirable work and low pay? I'm not saying this from a right-wing 'those people are just too lazy to work' attitude, but rather what I've experienced myself, and have witnessed through friends and observation.

I was unemployed about eight years ago for a stretch because the start-up company I worked for couldn't make it. My unemployment benefits were higher than many jobs I found, so it prolonged my unemployment. I have a good friend who has been unemployed for almost a year. He was a drug rep (no, not a drug dealer - well, the legal kind anyway) with a 60K salary. He lost his job because of the economy but refuses to take anything less, or at least substantially less than what he was making - which excludes him from just about anything in the area where he lives. I can't tell you how many times on the but or the train I've heard people say - they're hiring at McDonald's or some place equally as horrible, but then quickly ad 'but I wouldn't do that!'.

During the great depression we had the formerly comfortable quite literally selling apples or pencils on the street corner, and lots of folks tramped off to CCC camps to work for little more than three hot meals a day. Fast-forward to today where we hire cheap immigrant labor to do the jobs most of us do not wish to do. I see a fair amount of job openings posted in the city in which I live - just not jobs that pay tremendously well. How many people are unemployed simply because they will not take lower paying jobs or are 'holding out' for something in their chosen profession?

To topic, the hold-outs then use up benefit monies that could be used by those who truly cannot find jobs. And yes, I realize people pay into the system for unemployment insurance to receive such benefits - but my friend the drug rep had job offers in retail sales and driving delivery trucks that he refused. He could be working and getting by. I just wonder how many others are in similar situations. The unemployment rate is high, but is it made worse by American entitlement?

Yes - Bush isn't running in 2012

which they in fact - are not; wish this bloody thing had an edit function.

what has bush done in the last two years, nothing. Why, because he is not able to hold a thought and he has interest in nothing. The proof he is a dolt is right in front of you if you care to see it, of course that takes some minimal power of observation.

Admittedly I don't think GB ever professed to be a Rhodes Scholar, but contrary to your comment I think it takes a wise man to know when perhaps it's best to lay low and keep quiet. Quite often it is those who know when to shut up that prove much more intelligent and insightful than those that never will.

As far as intelligence testing goes, I think that's highly overrated. Some of the smartest people I know might not score so high on an IQ test, but have a sense about them that transcends 'book learning'. Conversely, some of the dumbest people I know have several papers hanging on their walls claiming them to be nothing short of brilliant - which they in fact are. A nuclear physicist might be 'smarter' than a mountain man, but which one will survive a month alone in the woods? Sorry, perhaps a bit too metaphysical, but you get my point.

Please explain to us how, if we don't care and don't mind this happening to us, do we lose?

Mr.Dog are you seriously asking this question? It all seems innocent enough; 'we're at war with the terrorists, we must give up some of our civil/basic human/decency rights to "protect us". Shrug a shoulder and don't give it a thought. Until the stakes go up, and up, and up - and pretty soon you are living in a police state. Oh, it's to 'protect you brother' so no worries. There is some truth to the old 'first they came for my neighbor....(Google it if you haven't heard it before). The 'State' is famous for taking away liberties of the citizenry 'for their protection'. Usually you never get those freedoms back, and it only gets worse. Yes, it's only being searched to get on an airplane - but what's next? And for what?

A group of third world murderers get 'lucky' and kill a bunch of Americans, so now we sh*t-can the constitution and our civil rights so that the government can keep us safe. Right. Never heard that one before. I'd rather keep my freedoms and risk being blown to smithereens thank you. Although as one poster stated, if the cavity searches could be done by hot females....

You couldn't set the bar for failure much lower. You can't agree with any one politicians policies permanently, but the barrage of shrieking towards Obama for not being able to fix the mess he by and large inherited in the space of two years is simply mindless droppings.

I think it's an erroneous assumption to conclude that President Obama's low approval rating (and recent rebuke in the last round of elections) is solely due to his inability to bring the country out of the economic mess it currently finds itself. It's all part and partial, but there are other dynamics. I should think that the whole tea party thing exemplified this to a large degree.

Most thinking Americans (and despite what many of you who lean to the left and presume a natural predilection for genius seem to think, many on the right do think, and do so quite brilliantly) realize that there is no magic wand to cure what ails us. But these same thinking Americans are equally puzzled how spending huge amounts in a so-called 'stimulus package' which appears to have stimulated nothing in the realm of what was projected or hoped may not be the approach that is best for America. Neither is ramming through legislation with closed-door politics that is designed to press home a personal agenda that is also not in the way of thinking of many Americans. In short, it's not only how you get to an end, or even how quickly you get to that end - but how you accomplish this end result in the process. While you see that as obstructing policies that you, your party and your candidate favor, I think it's quite refreshing to see that the American people can still be roused to put paid to what they see as bad politics in a direction unintended for this democracy to go. Yes we need to move forward, but the American people don't seem to agree that the current administration has the right plan to get us there.

To point - so the moderators don't delete this - a President's approval rating with the American people can be measured by the character of the man as well as his policies and how he enacts them. Personally I don't think the sitting President has shown the type of character I wish the leader of this country to have. And yes, obviously they didn't see this in Bush either, but there is a stark difference between the man who believes the country is his agenda, and the one who believes his agenda should mold the nation.

Politics with honour? Tiger?

That exists?

15 year old Aberlour as we speak. Again, great to read your thoughts.

Thank you Madverts. Politics with honour - I think it existed for a few days anyway. Went the way of the Dodo and honest, real newspaper reporters.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but aren't your freedoms given or atleast protected by to a publicly funded army/police force? My guess would be that you and your children use publicly funded streets to get to work, no? If I drive to my work using a different road, why should I pay for the road you drive to work on? Roads/Army/Police/Firefighters/et al. should all be privately financed, you should have to pay for it all by yourself, right?

This is a stupid, cyclic argument. There is certain infrastructure that is necessary, and I don't mind my taxes going for that. Trouble is they go for a lot of other crap that is ill thought out and just moronic - such as your health care bill. Paying to be protected by the armed forces or having a street to drive on is entirely different than paying for joe blow who doesn't wish to participate in my capitalistic society to lay on his back-side and get free health care. Sorry this offends you.

Being from Canada, I pay for my healthcare though mostly provincal taxes and federal taxes, so my taxes are of course higher but I also know that if I lived in the states paid state, federal taxes and healthcare insurance premiums for my family, I would be paying slightly more per month. Based on living in Houston and New York, as I've turned down contracts to work in both places in the past year because of it.

Without meaning or trying to sound xenophobic at all, how do you know this if you don't live here? I live in NY and our taxes are the second highest I believe behind California. But NY and Houston are (assuming your talking about NYC) larger cities and different animals from a tax perspective than living in many other places in the country. I'll give it to you in Canada that your health care system seems to function a bit better than the European model, but you do pay high taxes and wait a bit longer to be seen by doctors - from what I've read. I lived in upstate NY for a stretch and all the Canadians from Montreal come to the US to buy things for that simple reason.

Ah Madversts I miss the days of a cordial bond of honour made with a firm handshake and perhaps sealed with a drink of good faith. You'd be surprised what a good single malt like Laphroaig can do (and if you haven't tried this do). Were there too many days of politics with honour?

The bill was designed to provide better access to those who don't have any insurance. If you've already got coverage under a good plan, you don't need the provisions of the bill.

Ah, and therein lies a part of the problem. I have good insurance, so I don't need the provisions of the bill. BUT I have to pay for the provisions in the bill. And likely I have to pay in a multi-faceted way. Most of the democratic elected officials who voted for this legislation likely would have no ideas the ways in which we will pay, as it was shown that most didn't read the bill.

The obvious way is taxes. These won't really kick in until the tenants of the bill get going in a few years. But there will be higher taxes to help pay for this bill.

The second way is increased rates. Can anyone say for certain that my rates will not increase eventually based upon the passage of this bill? I do find it odd that in the past six years I've had this plan it has gone up on average $5 per pay period each year; this one is slated for a $47 increase per pay period. Perhaps no relation, but who can say?

The third is quality of care. You folks like to tout the European models. Fair enough, but I have a lot of friends in Britain and all I hear are horror stories about the tremendous waits for care. Now we can walk into any ER or 'fast track' type of situation and be seen almost immediately. Not so in the European model from what I understand. Yes, our doctors have been highly paid and as a lucrative position, the best and brightest are attracted into the ranks. With a more 'socialized' model this doesn't seem to be the case. Suddenly our 'cutting edge' technology and expertise becomes, well, dulled. One of my closest friends in London just took her mother-in-law to Italy for a surgery she need to save her life; couldn't get it in time in England. Brought her grandson to the States for treatment as the best doctors are here. Hmmm. Interesting that.

So for the good coverage I have, I can pay more, pay more taxes and have crappier medical care. I don't like this, and you wonder why?

But - as a good liberal - you say, you are helping your fellow man who is less fortunate than you! How can you not wish to? What kind of monster are you? Well, I'm a practical monster, a capitalist (wasn't this the system behind our freedoms?)and call me stingy for thinking as such, but more interested in my kids eating and going to school rather than someone else I don't know. In fairness, I doubt that they would put their hard-earned money in my or my child's pocket.

Liberals, and particularly far leaning liberals with a socialist bent (which is very many of you - and it amuses me greatly to hear the howls of protest due to your fear of being labeled as such - c'mon, fess up and don't be ashamed) see the world through their particular brand of rose coloured glasses. The have-nots are all decent, hard working people who just cannot get ahead or get a break, mainly because 'the man' ('evil Republican', white man, rich man, corporate mogul, military imperialist - insert your villain of choice) will not let them do so. They need help and we must save them. There is an old expression about 'the Lord helps those who help themselves' but let's not cloud the issue with an even slightly religious quip. But truly, how many of these people are the 'have nots' from personal choice rather than any ill-doings by the evil 'man', or those who find themselves in such positions due to very poor choices? How many of these 50 million - a number that I too think must be a great exaggeration, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's 50 million then - don't have insurance from personal choice? I can think of few legal jobs that don't offer access to at least some type of reduced cost health coverage. Is it that they cannot afford it, or is it that they cannot afford cartons of smokes and cases of poorly brewed beer that I see flying out of the local convenience stores, purchased by these 'have nots'? Despite what people try to imply, you succumb to addiction, it is not forced upon you. True, once it's there it will not let go. But the initial choice is your own.

So what am I getting at? Do some studies. Tell me how many people don't have health care coverage because they are working hard but just cannot afford to do it. Contrast this with those who won't work, jump on the disability, medicaid, medicare bandwagon, those who just won't pay the price for coverage, etc. etc. I'm not a rich man. I work my arse off for what's in my wallet - which isn't much. I don't take fancy vacations, have expensive cars, and couldn't afford cigarettes even if I chose to be so afflicted. And I'm the average American who you are trying to sell this to. Now you want to take money from my pocket to pay for other folks to have something that I myself pay bi-monthly for. You ram this legislation down my throat without so much as an opening dance, handshake or good shot of whiskey. And you wonder why some want to repeal such legislation. You tell me why I should want this? Telling me it's my social responsibility sounds like so much self-righteous rubbish to me.

Should have said 'Clinton couldn't keep it in his trousers'.