There is no doubt that the collective response here is representative.

In the American society, teachers are ostracized if they get known to be involved with former students. Particularly if the student is a male.

I pity you.

It's hysterical.

And it tries to deny the fact that 18 years olds have been sexually mature for a long time, sometimes for the greater part of their stint as pupils, and that they are in the blossom of their youth. As are first-year's teachers.

It hints at a wish to supress healthy expressions of affection and sexuality.

People are angry at Bush.

Yeah, sure!

But who's fooled?

Just like Tony Blair was derided as Tory Plan B, the DLC influenced Democrats have an unmistakable scent of PNAC Plan B.

Democrats have used their years of opposition, particularly after the lost midterm elections of 1994, to position their party closely beside a Republican Party that's drifted far away towards authoritarianism and militarism.

It's curious how the Republican Party seems taken over by radicals - right-wing radicals, that is - at the same time as radicals among the Democrats may be noisy but totally powerless. One wonders if their main contribution is to scare the electorate to vote for Republicans. How come right-wing radicals seem less scary than left-wing radicals?

Democrats may have a record as more efficient when responsible for government. Will we now see them execute the chauvinist anti-liberal Big Brother-ish agenda more efficiently than the Republicans? Will they maybe, for instance, be more efficient in introducing even more corrupt machines for the voting booths, as if there is something wrong with paper ballots, pens, envelopes, sealed ballot boxes and real human vote counters used in (other) democracies? No, the Democrats hardly present themselves as a better alternative to the Republicans. Better, yes sure, but alternative, oh no, that would surely scare the electorate.

Does maybe the two-party system blur the picture for the people, making elections appear to be more about which individuals to put in power than what policies to pursue? Maybe the people would be better served by parties that were more homogenous, principled, policy aimed and coherent? Maybe the voters would feel better represented if compromises between different factions were done primarily after their support had been expressed in common elections - instead of obscurely within two parties?

Does a Democratic Party that yet hardly has started to address crucial issues to restore the American democracy and take on global challenges to our survival, including peaceful relations with foreign nations, make any difference if they win or lose? It's easy to get the perception that Democrats are more interested in gaining Power for its own sake than for what they want to do with that power.

Yeah, the Republicans may be scared. They, as individuals, may lose some income and prestige unless issues as Israel's survival, Muslim evilness, and the dangers of homosexuality to society come in focus timely to the elections.

But Americans ought to be scared too; until the voters reach awareness for how fast the country runs towards the abyss. Maybe it would be better to concentrate on that awareness instead for getting incorrigible Plan B Democrats pilot the trip to hell?

You are just too funny.

Who do you think cares about your bulges?

Why not cover biceps and shoulders too?

Americans do not need to worry about America's position as "Leader of the free world." The nation retired in fact already some time ago, and is hardly a member of the club any longer, rapidly abolishing its liberty as it is.

Oh, yeah, being a World leader remains within reach, but a leader of what, that's the question. A leader of governments tired of the 20th century's attempted remedies after fascism, communism and world wars?

America under Clinton chose path, and Bush's regime has only made this much more obvious. As the U.S. approached Russia not in a supportive way, but predatory and imperial, and avoided using its crucial influence over Israel to achieve fairness for Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, America's net contribution to long term peace and stability became negative. The mood of the American society became more martial, expansionist and bellicose already in the 1990s, and the distance to other democratic nations grew.

America's flirtations with authoritorian and fascist dictators, teaching of torturers, and support of coups against democratic governments were during the Cold War explained as "necessary" in the fight against the Soviet Union. When this need disappeared, the undemocratic and anti-democratic practices did not.

Mass media didn't stop serve democracy in America when Bush became president - that was obvious long before. The corrupting lobbying system and the even more corrupting election campaign financing system, are no news and neither is the bad practices in voting booths and vote countings around America. Also in these respects the differences between America and other traditional democracies have grown rather than narrowed.

Cruel conditions in prisons, long-term loss of civic rights after served sentences, considerably higher proportions of convicts than in comparable countries, and a clearly racist slant, this is the base from which the Bush administration has continued attacks on rule of law, constitutionalism and human and civil rights.

The Democratic party and the national elites may advocate alternative policies to that of the Republican-dominated Congress, but seen from abroad the differences seem marginal.

The Republicans' and the Neo-Conservatives' standing in the world may be low, but it's hard to see that the Democrats' standing should be much higher - and there doesn't seem to be any visible opposition even outside of the two-party system.

For the Free world, that's scary and pretty alienating.

If a democracy is under attack, why not mobilize the whole nation?

If a democracy decides to start a war of aggression, why not share the burden democratically?