In the same press conference when Obama acknowledged that his promise only meant the government would not dictate plans or doctors to individuals and companies might choose to change plans, he also pointed out that this happens all the time anyway and would continue to happen even without health reform. Why don't you or any other journalists covering this coment ever report that? His claim is aimed at the phony Republican argument that the government will dictate your coverage and health plan -- and subject your care to bureaucratic controls and cause you to wait for care. All of this is true under most current HMO plans, as the administration has occasionally tried to point out without any part of the press ever reporting it. I'm starting to think the problem is you guys all have such cadillac plans you dont know how the country lives.

For those who worry that the rest of the world will feel neglected as the US mourns MJ: NEWS FLASH! The rest of the world is mourning too and with far less inhibition. Check out this sand sculpture in India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshowpics/4709161.cms?frm=mailtofriend) or all the mass tributes around the world from Paris to the Philippines described in this NYT article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/world/27jacksonreax.html?ref=global-home)

For those who sneer at his musical influence, check out this tribute from A.R. Rehman, India's Oscar winning soundtrack composer. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/world/27jacksonreax.html?ref=global-home

And for those who obsess about his personal life (including charges that were never proven) check out the records of his philanthropy begining with the We Are The World which raised millions for Africa and eclipsing any other entertainer.

Any of the letters or the author would be lucky at their death to have given the world a fraction of what this man has.

I agree -- it was unusual in many ways, not least in the fact that he included the woman he had the affair with as someone he needed to apologize to.

This explanation is a disingenuous whitewash of, yes, bigotry. Most of the arguments emply the same reasoning that once sustained segregation and that are used against anti-discrimination statutes against other groups -- people should not be "forced" to interact with those they don't like, the government has no right telling people what to think -- when the truth is these measures do nothing of the sort. They say simply that one may not refuse to perform services to x, y, or z group as a matter of policy. All the arguments about culture and tradition were also made in defense of segregation. With the possible of exception of the argument about requiring religions to perform gay marriage -- which is absurd, the first amendment would preclude that just as statutes against gender discrimination do not force the Catholic church to allow women priests -- every argument advanced here has been used to defend racial or gender discrimination but would not be acceptable in those contexts today. Try the substitution and see if you come up with one. Even the family as traditional reproductive unit arguments have been trotted out to defend, for example, laws against mixed marriage. It is not gays or liberals who are seeking to impose their lifestyles or views on you, it is you who are seeking to impose yours on the rest of us. If this is what you mean by getting us to "think" maybe you need to think a little harder. Bottom line: traditional culture may not be used as an argument to enforce prejudices against a minority. If you don't want to deal with certain kinds of people stay away from them or from occupations where you will be required to deal with them.

Nicely summed up. Thanks for stating forthrightly what the real problems with the Bush invasion of Iraq were. Now if the American people would get it quite that way we would have change we can believe in.