had_enough writes, “We say Bush and the rest of these warmongers should have to put their own kids on the line first, *because they're war mongers!*”

Okay, I’ll bite: how should the warmongers “put their own kids on the line?” Really. Drop them off at an army recruitment center? Tie them up in a plane bound for Iraq? No, really. How should they “put their own kids on the line?” First one to tell me gets a cookie!

And do leaders only have to “send their own kids off to war” if it’s a war you don’t support? Would you “send your own kids off to war” for a war you did support?

Are warmongers’ kids fair cannon-fodder? Just desserts for having warmonger parents? You may be against the Iraq War. I am, not that that’s even the point. But those are all of our kids over there (yes, I realize the pressures are vastly different for those with children, parents and spouses abroad. Just keep reading.).

The point is that you don’t need to have children serving in the military to have war chops. Your war chops come, in part, for feeling personally responsible for every son and daughter you send into battle. Any Commander-in-Chief who doesn’t ache for every soldier that doesn’t come home isn’t worthy of the office.

Also, I’ve gotta tell some of you, you can be against the Iraq War, you can have protested at both of George W. Bush’s inaugurations, you can believe Mitt Romney is an opportunist who lacks integrity and credibility. You can be all of these things and still recognize that in this day and age, no one can put anyone else’s kid in the army. That’s just a fact. And that you don’t need to have children in the military to have war credibility. Which is my opinion, supported by, well, history. Can we say, Abraham Lincoln? Heck, why not Bill Clinton?

And I'm done. Unless someone's willing to go for the cookie prize.

The Brad, I find the coat hanger on the "Right to Choose" billboard a little ewwy.

And in Manhattan, these ads barely qualify as edgy.

Now the real issue is having so much crap it exceeds your living space. Down with storage facilities!

scottb1, I immediately thought of Olestra, too. And shuddered.

Shazzer4400 writes “Good health is (or should be) more important than extra square footage on our homes.” You hint at this in your comment, so this is more of an addendum/clarification: it’s not necessarily the case people are choosing houses over health. Heck, a lot of these McMansions have their own movie rooms (to sit and eat while viewing) and then home gyms to work off the effects of their movie rooms.

The bigger problem would be the poor planning of suburbs and exurbs in general. You’d love to walk to the corner store only there isn’t one. You have to drive to get to anything. You’d love to ride your bike but dedicated bike lanes are few and far between and often disappear then reappear miles later. You’d love to walk to work, only your job is in the city so you can’t. And you’d love to live in the city where things really are walking distance but you can’t because you’re priced out of even moderately sized homes in the city.

Then you add in 1) schools cutting out gym and recess time to prepare for more testing, 2) soda machines in schools to supplement the lack of adequate funding, 3) lack of decent, affordable produce and lean meats in poorer areas, 4) the abundance of cheap, convenient, bad-for-you foods, 5) high fructose corn syrup in virtually everything, 6) ignorance of appropriate portion sizes and 7) doctors encouraged to push pills versus helping patients develop healthy lifestyles. Well, I’m a little surprised there aren’t more fat-asses out there. So I really don’t think anal leakage is going to fix any of these problems.

Anonymous writes: "I think most of the condescending letter-writers here are probably blessed with genetics and an upbringing that make it easy to maintain a healthy weight.”

Actually, I bet some of those letter-writers are overweight but don’t think they are. Overall, their weight may be fine, but more of their weight is concentrated around their waist (bad) as opposed to their hips.

Or, as people reach middle age and beyond, they think they’re still as tall as they once were or as slim. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/02/health/webmd/main1575185.shtml

Or, “among adults who met the National Institutes of Health criteria for being obese, only 15 percent realized they were obese.” http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060422/food.asp

And with 2/3 of the country either overweight or obese, the odds are good that some of those condescending letter-writers are in that two-thirds.

We "respect life" by not benefiting from its end. So, to its logical conclusion: 1) no cadaver organ donations and 2) no inheritances. Hey, conclusion two doesn’t sound so bad!

As for "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical.” Uh, so what’s war?

had_enough, they already have alternatives to Gitmo--secret prison in Eastern Europe, Thailand and Afghanistan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

They've been in place since 9/11, so I don't see why they don't just close Gitmo (which has attracted so much negative attention) and use those. Unless, of course, it's to keep Gitmo as a lightning rod so we forget about the secret prisons overseas. Ah, so that’s Cheney’s evil plan.