The Brits have a strong point. Why aren't our representatives raising the same concerns? What are our objectives in Afghanistan? What are our interests? I'm not interested in rebuilding Afghanistan. Our only interest is in destroying Al Qaeda wherever they are. Certainly our current approach is much more than that and is also insufficient.

The world is an ever changing and very dangerous place. Journalists, particularly in today's digitally connected and instantaneous world, are a real threat to those who hold power. In particular, in countries where he government pretends their citizenry have real civil rights that we take for granted, it's even more important to silence those who point out the hypocrisy. 2/3's of humanity lives with their individual rights severely trampled upon, and the lone journalist who is willing to expose them may be their only hope, especially since the U.S. seems to have abdicated any responsibilty to stand up to for freedom around the world, preferring instead to curry favor with the likes of Cezar Chavez.

Whole Foods is a great store. This will blow over because there is nothing else like it out there and most "Progressives" or "Liberals" or wannabe radical leftists will not inconvenience themselves by doing without. If you know people like this, you will know that their consumption of organic and 'sustainable' food is a fetish; they consider their diets a political act and will not easily give up that piece of their lifestyle. What's most entertaining about this debacle is the lack of tolerance shown by those who wear their tolerance like a badge of honor. I mean, isn't Mackey's point of view just one color in a great rainbow of diversity that makes our society so great?

Why should I help someone have a pet? I'm going broke from this recession and I should subsidize someone's pet?

Your pets should die before my money goes to pay for their care, sorry.

You are stupid. If you get to keep more of your money because you have a pet but I don't because I don't have one - then I'm being taxed at a higher rate because I don't have a pet, it's axiomatic. THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE.

I don't often call people out on these sites, but are you for real? I refuse to read any justification for this policy - there can't be one. Let me tell you, I've been unemployed for 10 months and am going broke - but I don't want a government handout, I'll get on back my feet on my own (with some help from friends and family). I have a daughter in college who has to take more loans to stay in school, we are running trillion dollar plus deficits - do I have to go on? Let me ask you this, is there any good cause you don't think the federal government shouldn't get involved in? What do you think the purpose of the federal government is? To deliver every social good some freaking jerk-off dreams up? I suggest you learn something about the nature of liberty and our constitution instead of wasting your time posting on this site.

I need to find a new country. Pet ownership of any sort being given favored tax treatment? Really? There is no rationale in the world that makes this fair, sensible or prudent. Not with my money, no thanks.

Every day I'm greeted with something more and more absurd - I'm starting to think that we need to start from scratch or maybe divide the country into two countries, one for those who want a nanny government and the other for those who want a minimalist government. Oh, wait a second, then who would pay the taxes for the Nanny government?

I wonder what HuffPo is trying to be? Commentary only? Reporting? Actual journalism? Advocacy? It seems to be a bit of everything, and ultimately confused. As for nepostism, it is part of the world - people favor their families over others out of a very strong instinct. I'm not outraged by it per se, rather it's that it seems to be aimed at ingratiating itself with the powers that be, and that can never be good for reporting, journalism or commentary (commentary being from many different ideological viewpoints). It's only good for advocacy. If HuffPo is to be only issue advocacy (taking sides and flacking for your side) then it loses all of it's credibility.

The new narrative seems increasingly to be that if you are a minority, you aren't equal, you are better than white people, and white men in particular. Wow, it's just so hard to keep up. As for Lee's politics, I simply cannot take him seriously when he speaks - there is nothing new flowing from his mouth. As for his movies, early on he had a unique voice (like many good filmmakers) but it seems he became conscious of himself and his legend/image - whatevs - and became increasingly heavy handed to the point of being distracting. He doesn't realize that the reductionist view of human behavior and racism being pedaled today just doesn't match up well to the world - the entire sociological pedagogy of it is in fact based on hooey. Believing in it skews ones view of world off-kilter and it shows in his later work. If only he kept to being a great filmmaker and artist, maybe he would still be one.