>?? Almost complete lack of coverage? *chuckle* I dare say this is about the most paranoid nation on earth in that subject. It seems that just about every two weeks there is some new 'finding'. Salt kills one week and salt gives life the next. Fat is bad for you then it is good for you.

That's just smoke and mirrors. Spreading confusion on the matter, and lack of thorough, real-science research. Because the results would shake the industry. Deja vu.

>>I think there's also another strain in the mentality at work here. You see, there was always some category of people anyone could pick on - through history, you had slaves, serfs, Jews, lepers, hobos, black slaves etc. Anyone could treat them as bad as they liked and get away with it, because such a behavior was actually legal. Now with all the political correctness and politeness, there's not a single category of people that you can push around without risk - except smokers. And after a few millenia of civilization which was taking an existence of such a group of pariahs for granted, there's a common reflex that such a group be created.
>
>Interesting point. I suppose I'd agree in the sense of using others to make one's self feel better. Sure, in that sense it's all too true. Just go to a children's playground and you'll seen hear "Four eyes", "Fatso", etc..

And there's always enough people who don't grow up in that sense. They're still on that playground. Now political correctness forbids them to pick on any other ethnic, religious or political group, but it's always open season on smokers, so...

>The notion of personal responsibility is an interesting one. Peggy Noonan has just today written a piece about this in the online Wall Street Opinion Journal at http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002699 which I couldn't agree more with.

I don't know much (nor care much) about the personalities of your politicians and columnists to judge the other parts of the article. She probably has a valid point on those accounts.

In the case of the boy scouts, I think she is wrong. By suing, this guy is actually fighting for his stand, not whining about it. If the Boy Scouts are supposed to help upbringing religiously oriented kids, they have obviously failed in setting an example in tolerance. If they allowed for an atheist in that position, they would both showed breadth of view, the American tradition of religion tolerance, and stay in the trenches fighting for their values - as they did when they allowed this guy to be a member in the first place.

>On a more serious note... How is it that those who knowingly place the pleasures of sexual encounters where AIDS is more likely to be transmitted will not stop? IOW, they are placing sex above life as their value system. Sad...

That's responsibility, or lack thereof. And I wouldn't think it's a value system, it's simply brain switched off.