The Democrats have been bought to the same extent as the Republicans by Big Oil and the Saudis. Big Oil gave its marching orders to Cheney at that secret meeting in 2000. The Saudis have lots of perks available for politicians who help them out while in office. Saudi financed think tanks and foundations are waiting to hire consultants, etc. If you do too much to hinder the Saudi/Big Oil agenda you will find campaign funds drying up and well-financed opposition in the next primary. It's perfectly obvious that the Administrations distaste for the Iranians acquisition of nuclear weapons stems from the impossiblility of invading Iran once they have them. The Saudi/Big Oil plan to totally control mid-East and Central Asian oil will stumble if we fail in Iraq and when the Iranians have their first nuclear bomb. So which Dems are willing to sacrifice their career to put an end to the insanity of trying to own the oil rich countries? Big Oil has been one of the major impediments to nuclear energy, the only viable option for energy independence. And who are their major helpers in the anti-nuke crusade? Liberal Dems of course. Bush and the Republicans will never leave Iraq, but would the Democrats? We will still be there in five years no matter who is elected.

We only buy wild salmon. The main reason is that I do not believe that farmed salmon contain any omega-3 fatty acids. Wild salmon get their omega-3's from the food chain that starts at the algae that create them. For the same reason we would never order salmon in a restaurant. What is the the point of eating salmon at any price if the most important nutrient is missing? That should be the key argument against farmed salmon. Unless the farms are feeding the salmon with wild herring, etc, they will contain no omega-3's. I have heard that some salmon farms are feeding salmon with corn, so you will not only get no omega-3's, but will get addditional omega-6's, which although necessary are toxic in large quantities. We should be paying for nutritional benefit, not quantity. But of course that is not the American way.

We are all worth exactly what our replacement will work for. Now it's global. There is nothing wrong with that, except that it falls initially on the poorest and least politically powerful. But how will companies in the US survive with no customers? So far we are doing with borrowed money, both by ordinary citizens and the government. Those with political power and high incomes (they go together) will resist any attempts to reduce their incomes, and the present political parties will aid and abet that. Incomes of everyone in the US must come down, including the powerful, educated, and well-connected. So far the powerful, educated, and well-connected have used their political power to avoid that by electing Republicans who subscribe to G. Bush's beliefs. Seventy six years ago the incumbent who had the same beliefs was replaced with a Democrat who realized that to avoid a socialist catastrophe the US had to level the playing field. Is it really going to take another depression to shape us up? The answer is probably yes, since the Dems have no coherent alternative to G. Bush's way. They are just as locked into protecting the incomes of their constituents as the Republicans. A plague on both their houses.

Well, as a male and father of several children, my wife was ready, willing, and able for more sex than I was after childbirth. I kind of saw her as the mother/madonna, not the horny babe she had always been. Other than the milk leakage/explosions everything worked fine. My (limited) experience with mothers and non-mothers is that motherhood makes women far more sexual. Since it appears to make women more intelligent and better athletes also, that stands to reason. So women who choose not to have children are giving up being smarter, stronger, and having better sex. Pretty dumb tradeoff.

My wife and I have been using Quicken since it came out. By being rigorously anal about tracking our spending we were and are able to plan occasional extravagance. I'm a retired engineer and my wife did very little work outside the home, despite having an advanced degree from Harvard. However, we don't sound as unable to spend as the writer. Compulsive savers can, I believe, learn to spend if it is carefully planned. Knowing exactly how you spend your money facilitates that spending. My experience is that by carefully avoiding spending on the little things, the big things take care of themselves. Years ago I read three rules for engineers. The author pointed out that, although engineers are well paid, they make nothing like other professions. So engineers were advised to take their lunch to work, join a church, and avoid commercial entertainment. The church membership, despite requiring contributions, facilitated the avoidance of commercial entertainment. It would probably surprise many readers to know how much the little things cost in a year. By avoiding that $3 cup of Java on the way to work and making your own coffee can save over $500 a year. Perhaps the writer can justify some minor "extravagances" by realizing how much they are saving by avoiding the "little" things. They are probably already avoiding them if they have saved $300,000 by their mid-thirties on one moderate income.