I humbly submit that we already heavily legislate our own behaviour, and for good reason: we're a bunch of animals.

*** Here, I agree

We have all sorts of laws barring us from the bad (eg. murder, robbery, rape assault), so why not also have laws directing us toward the good (eg feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing medical care--and insurance--for the poor)?

*** You're imposing YOUR value judgements and you're selecting the people that your govt in its wisdom chooses to help. You're FORCING your choices on me. I prefer to make that decision myself.

I turn a decent buck for what I do, so I'd be one of the underwriters of such legislation. I've never had any problems with tax dollars being used to help people who need help.

*** That's great. NOTHING prevents folks who feel as you do from making massive contributions to worthy charities without the loss in govt overhead. Somehow in the liberal mind this translates into forcibly taking my assets and sending them to someone else that you deside is more deserving.

I think the Africa aids initiative arose because the admin felt the need to publically balance its political karma, not because of any particular ethical or moral stand. Hell, that's what I thought even when I was cheering Bush on. (I'm nothing if not a cynical bastard.)

*** I think that you underestimate the effect that having capable minorities in the cabinet (Powell, Rice) vs showpieces has on admin policy. Think about it.

Maybe Hillary will want to take our guns and give us healthcare. Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad deal.

*** Give "us", i.e. forcibly take my work product and give it to "someone more deserving" as determined by Hillary clones.