"Kennedy's death: Ireland mourns a "true friend"" - GlobalPost

This is such an important part of th KENNEDY legacy.

"Rendition of Terror Suspects to Continue Under Obama" - NYTimes.com

President OBAMA, whom I supported vigorously, is risking the loss of a huge measure of my support if he continues to take positions like this one. I cannot believe what I am reading and am sorely disappointed he has made this decision.

"Under Agreement, UBS to Give Up 4,000 Names" - NYTimes.com

I'd like to know what's being done to deal with the same problem in Monaco. Does the IRS believe that it knows the names and has the required financial information on all US taxpayers whose financial holdings in Monaco are taxable under US law? I very much doubt it, and I am surprised not to see this being discussed.

"President Obama is the real target of health care protesters, not policy"

This is perhaps the best analysis of what we are witnessing in some number of places around the country. I have thought this from the beginning and this commentary explains this very well.

"Jewish Groups Say Obama’s Pick for Medal Has Anti-Israel Bias" - NYTimes.com

If the Jewish groups opposing this award can look at themselves in the mirror and not grimace, I feel sorry for them. There is no need for anyone to have an unblemished record of support of Israel in order to receive anything, and the groups that think they can make this a litmus test insult themselves, I am sorry to say.

Mary ROBINSON explained herself fully and that should be all it takes. She has advanced more human rights in more places for more people than the office workers in these groups who probably write these protests. They make it hard for anyone to support Israel when its rabid supporters do silly things like this.

The next person they will be criticizing is Justice SOTOMAYOR for being biased since she is a Roman Catholic. The Israeli supporters are going to learn that we all have to get along and accept the fact that support of Israel is not a prerequisite to get there. It's their choice whether we do.

"Health Debate Turns Hostile at Town Hall Meetings" - NYTimes.com

Whatever the competing merits may be in health care reform, there is no place for violence and no place for people who cannot respect our marvelous informal rules of civil discourse. Those rules are founded on the notion that allowing the expression of as many views as reasonably possible is a good thing for our democracy. That is not always easy to do, but disrupting presentations and interfering with the speech of others is neither necessary nor productive. If people have ideas and points of view to express, let them work to voice those opinions in a civil and respectful manner whatever their political orientations might be.

It is an embarrassment to our stellar system of freedom of expression to see what is happening around the country. Those who realize this will move to correct it; those who do not .... well, I feel genuinely sorry for you.

"Shape of planet blogging" - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

What a great and sad point!

"FreeScore.com: Not Exactly Free" - MousePrint

This is one of the most deceptive marketing programs I have ever seen and if this is what Ben STEIN wants us to associate with him, he is free to do so. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself, but there is something about his money-making instincts that probably prevent him from doing so. Thank goodness for this blogger who signed up to get the answer on fees. If news media were really concerned about reporting what is important to customers, they would be telling us all what the advertising for freescore.com is not.

"Driven to Distraction - Cabbies Stay on Their Phones Despite Ban and Proven Risks" - Series - NYTimes.com

I refuse to stay - or pay any fare - in a taxi whose driver uses a telephone of any kind while driving, or any other handheld advice.

Cash for clunkers....

I am a very strong supported of President OBAMA and his programs, and the idea of getting fuel INefficient cars off the road is a good one.

However.....

Replacing them with more cars may help the economy but I do have to swallow hard on anything that means more cars on the road, even if more fuel efficient. Who knows whether the cars being scrapped were driven very much by their owners and whether the new cars will actually result in increased air pollution because they are used a lot more.

In my own case, we own two 1988 Hondas. We made conscious decisions at the time to opt for good fuel efficiency, and we have been very happy with both cars. Neither qualified for this program because they are rated at higher than 18 MPG. While it is good to focus on the worst offenders, I have to ask myself, at least, whether it is fair for someone who - in 1988, for example - bought a gas "guzzler", and who has been polluting our air to excess during twenty years to receive up to $4,500 from the government when we receive nothing toward the purchase of our next car which we hope will be much more efficient than the ones we own.

This system has worked successfully in France, Germany and perhaps elsewhere but I do not know if they have the same requirements. In France, for example, it appears that the only requirement is that the car being traded in is older than 15 years. Even if a lower amount is offered, that seems much fairer.