Great idea. Let's be sure to also have another surtax that covers the cost of Iraq (retroactive, back to when Bush got us into the mess).

Furthermore, let's reinstitute the military draft. These measures would help us avoid this kind of nonesense in the future.

...it is the job of local media to asked him EXACTLY (and specifically) how he intends to do it

It kills me the way the Corporate Media portrays the Blue Dogs as 'moderate'. As if anyone in Congress who wants a (however modest) public option is therefore 'immoderate' or 'leftist'. For all intents and purposes there IS NO Left in this country, least of all in Congress. And yet, THE MAJORITY of Americans polled prefer not just a public 'option', but outright single payer! How political writers can portray politicians who are considerably to the Right of what mainstream Americans what (whether it be on health care, or perpetual warfare)as 'moderate' is beyond me...

Costs are not the ONLY problem with current health care. Insurance companies dropping clients who get sick is one of the biggest problems and this issue IS addressed. Note that in Michael Moore's film 'Sicko' in EVERY ONE of the disastrous cases cited, patients HAD health insurance but were screwed by their insurance companies. This will be prevented under the new legislation (both House and Senate versions).

As for costs, yes, to some extent costs are addressed because when insurance exchanges (and hopefully) a public option are formed, they will have greater negotiating power than now exists. Also greater numbers of people having insurance helps contain costs. When insured people have a procedure done or buy an Rx drug, the bill is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS than when the same thing is purchased without insurance. This is because the insurance company (or in the case of Medicare, the government) has negotiated the price down in advance.

...even by Cary Tennis standards! (actually it was NO advice). As usual someone asks what to do about an issue and Tennis rhapsodizes lyrical about a lot of hot air.

OK, the man may well be jealous of the attention paid to his wife, and this COULD be about something very small ;-)

HOWEVER there are a few other things to consider: There's always the "good for the gander" standard that applies to in this column. So, let me ask ladies - might you not be a bit peeved if your handsome husband was getting swag from various other ladies? (how about if he was getting attention from handsome gay GUYS?)

Maybe the guy's concerned about how his two cute little girls will grow up. Should they be raised to expect lots of undeserved perks just because of their sex appeal?

Maybe the writer isn't even a man, but rather a jealous ugly step sister. Remember, on the internet nobody knows you're a dog, as the old saw goes. Perhaps it is a valid question to ask if it's fair that the not so "fair" ladies don't get the respect of the pretty ones. Seems I've seen that theme (justifiably) many times on Broadsheet.

Finally, just maybe it is a valid question to ask if good looking people (both men and women) deserve the many and lucrative perks they get in the workplace.

Your last posting was even more incoherent and off topic than usual. And you didn't even drag Glenn Greenwald into it this time....

I guess I can see why 'Muslim zealots' might be morally opposed to our various warz in the Middle East. But are you saying that 'teh gays' (by the very nature of homosexuality) are opposed to the wars?? I guess you need to convince the gay men and women now fighting in our wars that they are, in fact, opposed to those wars...

I was thinking that Marcel Proust made a career out of doing just what Cary suggests. Someone beat me to the punch. I think Cary's idea is a good one, BUT if you try it for a while, and it makes you EVEN MORE bummed out about your 'special gift', drop the idea and try something else. Like maybe going into social situations in a more relaxed manner, and trying to consciously be oblivious to some of the details swirling around you. Think about sex when someone is showing you their new furniture and wall coverings, etc.

DON'T BEAT YOUR WIFE!

"Bush/Rockerfeller Republicans have partnered with the Far Left Elitist Liberal Progressives..."

That was cute, really made me laugh....

Oh, wait, were you serious?!?!? Dude what planet have you been on lately?? You've seen "Liberal Progressives" in Congress?? Where, in Glenn Beck's imagination? Name 4 or 5 for me. Only one I can think of is Dennis K. from Cleveland (but he's not elitist, but rather populist.

... he's gay, Gay, GAY!

"At an academic conference on U.S. foreign policy a few years back, I was one of two people in a working group who voted to urge the government to stop all terrorists from entering the U.S. whether they planned to use weapons of mass destruction or conventional weapons."

So I guess the rest of the group didn't think having foreign terrorists enter the US would be a problem??

Every critique of Israeli policy, even if it is made by a native born patriotic Israeli citizen, MUST BE ANTI-SEMITIC, no matter what, and must be commented upon, even in forums that have no relationship to the original critique.

Sure sign of mental illness, and the kind of thinking that allowed right-wing nuts to hijack American "patriotism" in order to silence critics of our Iraq disaster. Yes, Salon needs better trolls!

...so much supercilious blather about things.

ho hum....

...veer off into boring and tedious paragraph after paragraph of tangential (on a good day) BS that has nothing to do with the issue at hand! Maybe he actually DOES have potential to be a writer one day.