....is it not possible that the choices that they are making to do so involve identifying what is really important to them, and what is not - differentiating between what they need and what they don't? If so, is it not possible that that $400 billion cash infusion that our economy supposedly is so desperate for actually represents $400 billion dollars worth of stuff that people don't need? That actually seems to be what you are saying in this post.

If so, why do we need to infuse the economy with those $400 billion useless dollars? Can we not view that $400 billion dollar loss in the economy as actually a net gain, in the sense that, the less you need, the more you actually have? If Americans have identified $400 billion dollars worth of stuff that they actually don't need in their lives, are we not, therefore, $400 billion dollars richer for having made that realization? Furthermore, given that the root of our current problem is a credit crisis stemming from a bout of unsustainably overleveraged spending - "We got into this whole mess by using cash extracted from wildly appreciating home equity valuations to buy whatever we needed or wanted, from healthcare to a new SUV to a second home" - would not a $400 billion dollar cash infusion of the type that you are advocating actually amount to the government simply propping up an unsustainable rate of spending on stuff that, as I have previously mentioned, we probably don't need?

The invisible hand has two sides. Ignore this at your own peril.

...if MGA has any legal ground to appeal this ruling?

In addition to filling in the bubble next to the candidate of our choice, why don't we also include a space on the ballot where the voter can write down who he or she voted for for each office. That way, in the event of a recount, if voter intent is not absolutely clear according to the bubbles, election officials can just look to who the voter wrote down as their choice to decide who the vote goes to.

Perhaps, if Minnesota had something like that, there wouldn't be so many challenged ballots, and the results would be a lot clearer now.

...look at who's feeding it its "steady diet of subprime loans." Perhaps, instead of "regulating its consumption of mortgage backed securities," the economists (who look a lot like government funded scientists) should have simply removed the tubes, let it out of the tank, and allowed it to fend for itself. Then maybe it wouldn't have eaten so many subprime loans and mortgage backed securities.

I agree with Cary that you are making a mistake when you couple an apology with an accusation. However, unlike Cary, I think it is the accusation that you need to focus on, and the apology that you ought to excise.

Who you relate to, befriend, and/or have sex with is, plainly and simply, none of your brothers business. He had no right to make that request of you, so the fact that you agreed to it in the first place is irrelevant. You aren't the one that crossed a boundary line here. He is. He crossed it when he made the request in the first place, and he has continued to cross it, and appears to be still crossing it now, by insulting you and making you feel bad over this. He needs to know that he was in the wrong, and that your personal boundaries need to be respected. And you need to be the one to let him know that.

Your only mistake here was not sticking up for yourself and allowing him to cross that line with you in the first place. However, it was not a sin, just a mistake, and it can be rectified.

It would be relevant if said brother had phrased it that way. But he didn't. According to the letter, he simply asked her not to befriend his roommate. He did not limit his request by location. It was made to apply to any and all circumstances. Also, it was not strictly applied to sexual activities, or any other activities he may or may not object to "under his roof." He was asking her to not even be friendly with him.

As I have previously stated, this is a hugely expansive, personally invasive, and unfair request that he had no right to make of her, and that she was therefore not obliged to honor. Nobody has the right to dictate your friends to you, and the letter writer (hello, Hoping) shouldn't be apologizing for anything. She should be standing up for herself.