> Did it bother Bob Costas when Lance Armstrong rode the final 50 meters of the Tour de France with his arms in the air in triumph? I'm guessing not.

I remember well witnessing on TV another triumphal moment from earlier on the final day of the Tour. It was Armstrong, riding next to his team's support car, hoisting a flute of Champagne's finest. Yes, while still riding in the race.

(I remember this moment because most MADD-eningly inappropriately, it was the driver of the support car who passed him the flute and then had a sip himself. Live. On TV. And none of the many police officers escorting the about-to-be-but-not-yet-winner even made a move to pull over the both of them - rider and driver - to administer a field sobriety test, much less a doping test. For goodness' sake, could they not have considered the impressionable CHILDREN?)

There is NO recall process for elected federal officials. Recalls are implemented only in some states and some municipalities for state and local officials. Unless your Congress member, Senator, or President or VP does something criminal and is impeached and convicted, there is no legal way for his/her constituents to forcibly remove him/her from office mid-term. As I understand it, Congress or the Senate can also refuse to seat the person. So vote carefully. The only way to remove a sitting official who has done nothing criminal is to turn up the public heat until he/she flees, if he/she gives a damn about such things. See George Bush, Larry Craig, et al for the effectiveness of that.

Sex-ed cluelessness bonus points:

I'm no teen (or 20- or 30-something, alas), but I would hazard a guess that not very many teens have any idea what a crockpot is. Making that particular analogy not very useful for the target demographic. A crock, one might say.

Or am I just out of touch with the youth culture?

And that's just the least of my quibbles with the use of such a crude, sweeping, one-size-fits-all simile.

"Nothing was ever done to the Reagan era people who orchestrated El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala."

Exactly so. And where did those people - the Pointdexters, the Abramses, the various undersecretaries and such - end up when Bush 43 came to power? Back in power themselves, pulling the same strings, for similar imperialistic ends. But by 2001, emboldened by lack of repercussions for their earlier crimes, they used even more twisted means and rationalizations for their crimes. THAT's why it's essential to not just call these things out today but to have accountability and punishment, where warranted. Even if these things occurred in the past, it's one of the few ways to prevent them recurring in the future.

Where was this nazi been born?

Each time a doctor refuses to provide a tubal ligation to an adult patient for reasons such as the ones discussed in the preceding letters, that doctor has to sign a legal agreement to adopt any unwanted babies resulting from the woman's inability to get the operation and her exercising her basic human right to have sex. Obviously, there's still the unfairness of the patient having to endure the pregnancy, but since this is fiction, I'm sure we can come up with a solution for that.

Anybody think that wouldn't right quickly solve the problem of doctors thinking they know what patients want better than the patients do?

mynameisdan deploys the "freedom vs. security" argument for one side of the health

insurance argument but fails to see that it applies equally to the other side:

"The relationship between government and the people is kind of like the relationship between parents and teenagers, isn't it?

'As long as you live under MY roof, you will follow MY rules!'

Socialized programs are the government's roof, and the consequence of accepting them is following their rules: i.e. the act of giving up our freedom to run our lives as we see fit.

How much freedom do you want to give up in exchange for security?"

Well, gee, let's consider the alternatives:

You have no insurance and you acquire a catastrophic illness: You're free to go bankrupt treating it. You're free to beg someone to pay for your treatment pro bono. You're free to give up and die.

You have insurance and you acquire a catastrophic illness that your insurance company is determined not to cover: You're free to fight them in court until they run out of money to pay their lawyers or you run out of money to fight them or you run out of breath. You're free to beg and cajole them to live up to their "promise" of coverage sooner rather than later. You're free to give up and die.

How much better those options are than knowing that you'll get some care if you really need it and can't pay for it yourself.

There's no doubt that some private insurance works relatively well for its customers but to argue that simply because it's private, not public, the customers are not in thrall to someone for adequate coverage is just not valid.

Yes, but maybe the irony is that Alex forgot that Rove and Bush ignored polls all the time while Salon is incessantly obsessed with polls.

Good article with interesting historical references and good logical points. One thing that still confuses me is why trains, which after all run on tracks and don't have the danger of drifting into the other lane, run whichever way. Specifically, in Paris, cars drive on the right, Metro trains run on the right, but (some?) SNCF trains run on the left. Pour quoi?

Simple. Bush wanted what was good for his cronies. The lobbyists worked for

his cronies. So what Bush wanted was what the lobbyists' clients wanted. So no

conflict.