Wow. A really thought-provoking article. I've thought from time to time about what we would do if Buddy, the German Shepherd/Yellow Lab that is the emotional center of our family, required expensive medical treatment.

I think it would depend on how old Buddy was. If he got to be 12+ years old and required expensive treatment, I would opt to have him put to sleep, and I would rationalize it thus:

For 12+ years, we've given this dog a great home, excellent food, plenty of fresh air and exercise, and as much love as any dog could handle. It's time to say good bye and give another dog from the animal shelter a good home.

On the other hand, if Buddy required expensive medical treatment earlier in his life, the decision would be difficult. I just don't know.

Recently, our vet told us Buddy was getting some gum recession and recommended that they clean his teeth. Okay, we said.

When the vet said Buddy would have to be anesthetized for the procedure, we said....uhhhhhhh, okay, if thst's what it takes.

When the vet said it could cost as much as $900 for the whole procedure, we said, "Wait a minute!" We cancelled that and got some doggie dental teeth-cleaning chews at the supermarket for $5.00.

Sheesh!

Bill: Once you behave like a jackass in public, it's like squeezing the tootpaste out of the tube.....

It's real hard to put it back.

If this is your attempt at being contrite, it's lame. Contrition doesn't sit well on Clintons anyway.

Look at Hillary. She's going to go down but you can depend on Hillary to never apologize or admit she was wrong.

King: I saw the Tennessee-Rutgers game. (Women's basketball, by the way, is so much more interesting than the men's game.)

And I saw the foul on Nikki Anosike with 0.2 seconds remaining. In fact, I saw it over and over, and over on the replays, from several different angles. The replays superimposed the time clock on the replay and slowed down the action so you could clearly see what happened when.

The clock did stop for a while with those 0.2 seconds remaining, but (and here's the important point) the clock stopped at the same time the foul was committed. It was not a case of a home-town timekeeper stopping the clock to give the home team more time to pull it out.

As far as Vivian Stringer and the Rutgers team are concerned, they should be happy in the knowledge that they can play with anybody in the country. And Vivian needs to give Kia Vaughn a good talking-to. That was a really stupid foul.

JMF: Women's basketball is better to watch than the men's game because:

• The men's game is kind of boring and predictable. It's too much like the pro game, with the emphasis on dunks. The women's game is more wide open, more exciting. It's basketball the way it used to be, before it became commonplace to have 6'11" behemoths clogging up the lane. Furthermore, there's an intensity and excitement in women's roundball that just isn't there in the men's game any more.
• The level of skill in the women's game has risen markedly in recent years. It's not that far behind men's basketball now, in terms of ball handling, shooting, and passing, and team strategy.
• As a man, I would rather watch attractive young ladies running around in shorts than men. Sorry, I'm just wired that way.

JMFQ: When you have to resort to statistics to prove that women's basketball isn't as good as the men's game, you're on shaky ground. Statistics don't reflect the excitement of the women's game.

I realize I'm in the minority in preferring women's hoops (maybe I'm in the vanguard), but as we used to say in Newark, New Jersey:

De gustibus non est disputandem.

I've been a lifelong basketball fan, and I've also played the game. I followed the NBA when they had franchises in Syracuse, Rochester, and Fort Wayne, Indiana (!). I've seen great teams come and go in the NCAA and the NBA. I remember the Wilt vs. Russell duels, and those great Celtic teams, and the way Michael Jordan and Julius Erving added other levels to the game.

And my feeling these days is that the NBA is very much yesterday. The pros have goten too big, and too good. (That's right, too good for their own good.) The NBA game is boring, and predictable. I can't even watch the playoffs any more.

The men's college game is more interesting, and of course, the NCAA tournament is one of the premier sporting events on the planet. But I don't care that much about the regular season in men's college ball.

What I do care about is the regular season in women's NCAA basketball. And I'd rather watch the women's NCAA tournament than the men's.

So why is it that a lifelong hoops aficianado like myself has gravitated toward the women's game? I think it's because the women's game has a lot of the freshness and excitement that the NBA had in the 1950s and '60s, when people like Bob Pettit and Oscar Robertson were defining the game. The women's NCAA matchups these days have the same intensity and excitement that the men's college game had in previous decades.

I realize women's hoops has a smaller share of the pie these days, but look at how it's grown in just the last 10 years. I think parity between men's and women's roundball, in terms of fan interest, is not that far off.

But that's just me.....