I mean I agree with Salon's politics that's why I subscribe. I enjoy the coverage of topics I care about from angle that I generally agree with, but when I read Salon defending itself as "New Organization" not a "Left Wing advocacy group", I tipped over in my chair and had a good laugh. Come on you guys are a left wing advocacy group, with left leaning biased views. Hell those are my views. Be proud. It's like Fox calling itself "Fair and Balanced."

I don't want to defend Dole and her stance on Boyle, and I have to admit I was rather turned off by Salon's attack on Boyle not because I disagreed, but rather because the attack seemed desperate. Personally while I doubt that Boyle's stock holding had much to do with his rulings - like most rich people, he's part of our "ownership" society - I do think it's important that public figures should be careful with the appearance of impropriety rather than impropriety itself. Otherwise it's the height of arrogance to think of oneself as above the law. However, I found the Salon critique like a conspiracy theory.

As a immigrant (though really I'm more of the Son of Immigrants since I came to this country so young), I'm automatically biased. I think immigration is a good thing. If we truly believe we are society of meritocracy then I find no one more deserving than the immigrant who works three back breaking jobs to give themselves and their children a batter life. I always find it odd that conservative who argue against immigration on the grounds of protecting poor americans are also the ones who argue against social programs for poor americans. For that reason, I cannot but feel that many opponents of immigrants are guided by xenophobia as they are hardly the ones affected by immigration. Their concern for the poor seem feigned at best.

Whoever wrote on health care in canada clearly has never tried to make a doctors's appointment in canada. The canadian/univeral health care system can be as problematic as our own. This is not to say that we as country should not provide health care to those who cannot afford it, but rather think harder about a better system. If there is something to be learned from Delong's article on Friedman, is that we all need to be more pragrmatic. Hopefully politicians on both aisles can learn from their economists and tackle problems not with pure idealogy but rather from a hope to find something that works.

I'm unsure why broadsheet is commenting on Calorie Restriction diets. It's old hat, and hat I really don't think is related to any gender issues. I have my opinions in it certainly - I rather live 80 years eating what I want to eat rather 120 years torturing myself with a diet of alge. I think it's demeaning to women who suffer from bulemia and anorexia to compare their plight with those who practice a controlled a diet such as calorie restriction. Not all diets are diet disorders. At some point it would be nice to see Broasheet make something other than overly broad generalization. There are so many legitimate issue to cover.

I'm not naive to believe that there are no genetic gifts or curses imparted by birth parents, nor arrogant enough to believe that good parenting doesn't matter. My girlfriend is adopted and has turned out beatifully. Her sister also adopted, not so much. She's in better situation than that of Rafael, but not disimilar - pregnant at early age, no college degree, scraping by . Did her mother do a bad job? Knowing my girlfriend's mother and knowing the success my girlfriend and that of her other sister (who is genetic) I certaintly think she was a good parent. There are bad apples in any family, and the greater question (and the question raised) is not why, but what our responsibilties? The article could have easily been about any child, not only an adopted one. I think also it's important to keep in mind that Rafael was adopted at the age of 9, and not at birth. Many things at that point are both to late to learn and to unlearn.

I have no love of Big Pharma, but before we condemn on the basis admistering placebos, I think a little more research is warranted on these studies. Just because one study proves that a drug effective in one circumstance means that it's effective in all circumstances - that's why we they have different clinical trials with different patients. Don't condemn companies for testing when we condemn them for not testing. You can't have it both ways.

I don't agree with China's adoption policy at least in regards to the clear anti-gay agenda. However some of the other rules have there place. Potential parents ideally should be screened. Obviously you don't want a child molester adopting kids. Saying you don't want someone who is chronically depressed adopting is more controversial but has validity. People who suffer from chronic depression are less able to take care of themselves and therefore someone else. Is a hard fast rule the right way to go about it? I don't know, but there are reasons.

As for the one child rule - sure it's not what we could consider liberty, but at the heart of it's environmental regulation taken to an extreme. If we believe that personal freedoms (such as spewing as much as pollution into air as we want) must be curtailed for the betterment of the world, we sometimes have to agree to things that we don't want to.