I agree. This program (SCHIP) is well supported. If in a democracy, a bill which is supported by 80% of the people can not become law, what good is it? If you step back and just look at things without the political parties, a popular program being expanded to cover more poor people should be able to become law fairly easy. I truly believe that if we want a functioning democracy, we have to act like it.

I want the president to come out and give a speech about it. I want him to say "You know, I am opposed to the idea that the government can compete with private insurers. I understand that this bill is very popular and despite my personal opposition to the bill, I will support it because it has the support of America. We need to show the world that democracy is good for the rich and poor, and that a people united can govern themselves."

I never hear anyone but Republican and conservatives when the Fairness Doctrine is brought up. It is like a boogieman to scare themselves that if they don't do something, the liberals will silence them and they will be shut out of the media. I understand the doctrine to say that opposing viewpoints must be given equal time over the airways. Surely, Fox is not opposed to this. I always see the tagline "Fair and Balanced" so I am positive they will be alright as there are an equal amount of liberal and conservative pundits. It is those loony MSNBC, CNN, and ABC who have to watch out! They are loaded with liberals and could do with an equal amount of conservative opinions, right?
If conservatives and republicans feel so strongly that the media is biased, why don't they support the Fairness Doctrine?

Isn't it interesting how so many terms which are used constantly are never defined. We cant leave Iraq till we have "victory", but we never know what that is defined as. We don't "torture", but can't tell you what "torture" consists of. There is "progress" in Iraq, but so far, electricity is still awful, drinking water is in short, no political resolutions, they can't maintain a police force... but there is "progress". Hell, President Bush will not support a dictator to get nuclear weapons right? We are on the verge of a war with Iran because of it. N. Korea with the madman Kim Jong Ill got them and we basically did nothing.

Our president is having a war on solid definitions.

Polls are a general indication of where the public opinion is at a given point. Polls indicate that SCHIP has a very high resonance among the general population. I think that it is a GOOD thing that politicians listen to their constituents. This whole ideal that is is always better to ignore the people really does not sit well with me. Look at how much President Bush watches the polls, he says he could give a rats ass what they say and he is doing a bang up job, isn't he? I look forward to the day we have a president who is actively listening to Americans and doing what most people need. I do believe that was the point of democracy.

Look, I do not see this as a bad thing. He is not a murder kneeling at the casket of his victim. This country needs to find ways to engage Iran, we need to use that thing called DIPLOMACY. If Ahmadinejad would like to see the site of the World Trade Center, perhaps he will appreciate the events more. This looks to me like a clear signal that he is open to talking with the administration. He has said he would not push the issue, but he would like to go there. I honestly do not understand why people are so afraid and angered by someone wanting to visit the site. I think that people are confused linking Iran to the attacks on 9/11. Maybe they could look at Saudi Arabia, where the majority of hijackers were from.

Perhaps a better set of lyrics come from Gil Scott Theron with his prose, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
---
You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.
....

Kirsten,
That sounds very reasonable. The words themselves are not the problem, but the message they convey. I dont understand why a country founded on some very basic ideals such as freedom of speech, has such restrictions. I know that many of them are self imposed or by the FCC, but still... Is your news similar to CNN and Fox or does it take a more level-headed approach?

Jeff, take is easy. Most of us think that Ann Coulter is a empty waste of a human being. War is a terrible thing, and it happens too often. The problem is that in America, news is a very commercial activity. So the News Corporations show sexed up news and compete with each other in a race to the bottom. The American people ultimately lose when this happens as the news they see reflects less and less of reality. Our foreign policy has been misguided for the last few years but things will improve.

It was a stupid thing for Fox to censor something like her saying "God damned war." It is a strange thought to me that Canada may have more open access and less restrictions on speech (even if self imposed) than here in the US. But really, her speech was not that notable other than it is very mainstream to be vocal about opposition to the war in Iraq.