So stop complaining. And one interviewee made no sense re not getting a McDonald's job, no logic in her response. Enough already with feminism vs. prostitution. It's a luxury to hear that whining, and now we're in a bad recession, so spare us all the women's power, not a sex object (oh yeah, if they're not sex objects, why do men date them, etc.).

Let's pretend we're grownups. Now, raise your hand if you want free healthcare, or at least healthcare cheaper than what you're paying. Everybody raised their hand, good. Now, how do we get either free or cheaper health care? Thats right, Uncle Sam pays for it. Now where does Uncle Sam get the money from? Well, of course, the Administration and Congress can easily figure out how to save to much from the existing system that there'll be plenty left over for people who can't or won't pay for care now. Like that acquaintance of mind who had the first high definition TV set I ever saw in a home (about five years ago) but has no health plan -- he's got his priorities, don't you see. Now the majority apparently is happy with what they have, but who says the majority rules, when it comes to Democrats spreading the wealth around? What's that you say, health care is a "right"? Yeah, so is housing and food and clothing and education. Just read the Constitution. From now one we get everything we want, whether we can pay for it or not. It works in Europe, doesn't it?

My goodness, I thought Obama was different. Look, he is Black, he's a great orator, he taught constitutional law, he grew up in exotic countries. How could I have been fooled? And why isn't he taking dictation from civil liberties activists? And why doesn't he care about Glenn and Bob Herbert? My head is spinning!

Like it or not, the torture debate often is semantic, like so much of public controversy. "Torture" sweeps very widely, and even if slapping somebody around is "torture", so are the horrible practices we've heard about in lurid accounts of medieval times, the Inquisition, Asia in modern times, and so on. If people don't want to give debaters leverage by using "torture" to cover all physical discomfort that is understandable, in my opinion. "Torture" can be as useful as "bad" at times, and this is both the fault of the Bush administration and their critics, who use "torture" for polemic effect. So much of the criticism boils down to "that's torture", as an argument ender, just like "racism" is used to shut down opponents. Of course people who are arguing or trying to change policy are not exactly committed to truthful discourse at times.

You must agree, or you wouldn't be reading this.

With seven of our military people dying in Afghanistan yesterday, I would suggest people focus on the "lesson of Viet Nam" as it relates to the here and now -- Obama's war. Of course, Afghanistan is different -- the present folly always is.

Shelter is as primary as health care: where's the free guaranteed housing for people who can't afford rent or purchase?

US emergency rooms will accept anyone with a broken leg for treatment.

And congressmen's health benefits are as unusual as any employers -- do people constantly argue everybody is entitled to the same? Why not a salary also for people who don't work?

Maybe you think "this guy's trying to be ironic, but ironically all those things should be free." I say, fine, but let's not pretend there's something magical about health care -- it's just something else you want for free if you can get it.

And what about treatment for illegal aliens -- will the new health plan let them wither away in the streets? Sorry for asking pesky questions, so much more fun to grandstand about HEALTH CARE FOR ALL (as demanded by people who assume "the rich" will be the ones paying higher taxes).

Yes, Palin is quite relevant these days, with obama's economic program failing, his health care package turning into mush, his disregard for civil liberties for detainees worse in some aspects than Bush's, his diplomacy with tough places like Iran/Russia/China looking like so much pap. Why not write about Palin, who really is relevant to the country's welfare? Good job, Joe.

.....what will he do? Why did you vote for him? When does he take action?

Stop focussing on the Republicans semi-racism or nativism or whatever. Focus on the main thing: Obama's first selection for the Supreme Court is a lightweight. Nobody credible (or incredible) has claimed she is going to make history with her opinions, and there's no evidence to think she will. Obama had the chance to find somebody on the left side who is brilliant and a phrase maker, a deep thinker and a sterling rhetorician. What did we get? Somebody who's qualified in the sense that she passes the intelligence test. Big deal. She should've stayed on the 2d Circuit, a good fit for also-rans.

Just askin'

That's what a vow of fidelity is, a vow of celibacy. After not that many years sex will be so infrequent in marriage as to be a non-factor. So why expect the man -- or woman -- not to have some on the side? You people are either hypocritcal, ignorant, nuts, or don't know anybody I know. And what good is a promise of fidelity from a man, say 33 years old? What does he, or anybody, know about how'll they'll feel after ten years of marital grinding sexual boredom, topped by spousal acceptance (read: indifference), and lack of excitement all around? Cary finesses all this with a torrent of b.s., but in a way he's being very honest in not believing in Santa Claus.