Posted on November 1 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great letter. Voters from all parties should do their best to be well-informed. I like Amanda's thoughts on the difference between historical speculation and fact in her closing as well.

On Misinformed voters are the real danger

Posted on October 28 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Worth,
You, sir, are a communist!!!!!!

Just kidding.

I liked the column. Worth explains an interesting trend in the book business. Because we all (including the columnist) like bargains so much, bucking this trend looks a little unlikely.

On Lowered book prices not really a good deal

Posted on October 16 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bornfree, I'm not really interested in doing a back and forth liberal/conservative thing here. I was just pointing out that the most explicit statement on illegal immigrants in the bill clearly says that they are not eligible.

The CBS story you referenced does point out some significant ambiguities in other parts of the bill that could possibly allow illegal immigrants to participate. I suspect these ambiguities will be changed before anything between the House and Senate is finalized.

I agree that if Democrats are going to claim that there is no coverage in the bill for undocumented workers, then this should be consistent and clear throughout the bill.

But even if the language in the bill is changed to be more explicit about excluding illegal immigrants, we all know that some will manage to acquire benefits, just as they manage to be hired without legitimate proof of citizenship or legal residency.

This gets me thinking about something else. The numbers people have cited for how much illegal immigrants cost states in unpaid emergency room and hospital bills (costs ultimately passed on to us) make me wonder which is worse: (1) the costs of all these unpaid bills, or (2) forcing all of us (including illegal immigrants) to have some kind of coverage.

I'm just wondering if the ultimate cost to the taxpayer might actually be LESS if some of these folks were covered, leading to otherwise-unpaid bills being paid. I don't know what the answer is. I'm just sort of thinking out loud here. It's complicated.

On Public option not needed in health care reform

Posted on October 15 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In response to "bornfree," the bogus illegal immigrants claim has in fact been disproven by many, including Newsweek in its August 29th issue. Their article entitled "The Top Five Lies about Health Care Reform" confirms that the House bill states, "individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States" will not be allowed to receive subsidies for health care.

On Public option not needed in health care reform

Posted on October 15 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Sorenson writes, "Another key proposal in the liberals’ bill provides coverage for illegal immigrants."

Really??? Where? This misconception has been debunked again and again. It's just not true.

On Public option not needed in health care reform

Posted on October 9 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree! Dylan's body of work and his international influence are unmatched.

On Editorial: Why Bob Dylan deserves a Nobel

Posted on September 28 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is it possible some are making too much of the "cracker" comment? The term has never been comparable to the "n" word, nor has the term ever been used as a blanket-like insult for all whites.

The term was used by upper class Anglos to describe southern whites of Celtic stock over two hundred years ago. These "crackers" were typically of lower social class. Since then it's been used to describe poor, uneducated, southern whites, typically in a derogatory manner, often in response to ignorant and uncivilized behavior. It's been used as much--probably more--by whites than by blacks.

I'm not much for name calling, but Mr. Wilson's outburst during the President's address sort of begged for it. To interrupt a presidential address like that was indeed uncivilized. It didn't exactly make him look too wise or well informed either.

On Rage is all the rage out there in Politicsland

Posted on September 14 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I really liked this column's message. I think many of us fall into the trap of simply arguing to defend our positions rather than really listening to others and being open to logical positions they might have. That's not to say we always need to agree or give in, but the lack of listening, common sense, and respectful dialogue is disheartening.

I think the advance hysteria over the president's recent address to school children is a great example of this problem. The speech was both timely and inspiring. (If you haven't seen it, I suggest checking it out on youtube.) I have yet to see any evidence by critics of the speech that Obama changed any of its content after receiving criticism for planning it in the first place. A few things were reportedly changed in the suggested curriculum the white house offered, but those were minor things. I was glad to see Laura Bush speak out in support of it too.

I digress . . . Thanks Julie for the thoughtful column.

On A constant state of always wanting to be right

Posted on September 14 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What an odd reaction to the Newsweek article, which I read and found really interesting. Research cited in the article suggests that humans are born with a preference for "like groups." In other words, we are more comfortable being with people who look like us, and we make positive assumptions about people who look like us and less generous assumptions about those who don't. Even people raised in diverse cities and by parents who value tolerance and acceptance fall prey to this.

Researchers are finding that one way to counteract this is to talk openly and directly about race with young children. Talking about everyone being "equal" without directly addressing skin color is apparently too abstract for young minds to completely grasp. Yet most parents who value tolerance and diversity tend to drift into these abstractions rather than addressing skin color directly.

There's much more in the article, but the overall message I think is that while science can explain why we may be prone to prejudice, we needn't fall into that trap of what might be "natural." Again, it's a thought provoking article. I just don't quite understand the conclusions Mr. Cunningham drew from it.

On Babies are born with racist mechanisms

Posted on September 2 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent letter. Thanks for bringing some sense to the debate.

On The same old scare tactics as in 1961