I'm no Bears fan but I'm with buzz on this one. The NFL right now is about your QB and your pass rush, and the Bears had both, plus Forte, last year until injuries piled up. I've been a critic of Martz's frequent use of 5-7 step drops, especially with a struggling O-line, but with him out of the way now I expect Cutler to do even better. He was hung out to dry consistently and still turned in good performances. I like the Bears this year a lot - just a shame they have to compete with Aaron Rodgers and the retooled Detroit Lions.

I think you guys are being flippant and kind of cruel if your posts represent your true feelings here. I grew up without religion and so had no problem accepting homosexuals as I would any other different sort of person. But if you grew up in a strongly protestant Christian town in a protestant Christian family, and all the important adults in your childhood held those beliefs, then I'm not going to call them "crazy" or "stupid" for holding on to them. The social acceptance of homosexuals has changed dramatically over the last 25 years, in fact I can't name another group of people who so quickly went from stigmatized to largely celebrated in American society. And that's great - but you have to expect people with 'traditional' values to feel threatened by it. It's natural. And when you start boycotting Chick Fil A, I think they every reason to feel like their worldview is under attack. Because it's chicken! Don't politicize chicken, please. Mill's timeless arguments for free speech in On Liberty were targeted not just at government, but at the cultural values of the Victorian era that shunned deviants. When you refuse to do business with someone because of their political views, you're demonstrating intolerance. Chick Fil A doesn't discriminate in hiring or service, they just happen to be forthright with the values they advocate for in the public sphere. It's not like they're engaging in child slavery like Nestle.

I think the LGBTQ movement is struggling to adapt their tactics to their new general acceptance in American society. You don't have mayors trying to evict all the gays from their cities anymore, but you do have mayors trying to evict Chick Fil A for its Baptist beliefs. That's the intolerance I'm worried about. And anyone with a belief in the marketplace of ideas can't be happy to see people being told 'shut up about your beliefs or don't live here', which is essentially what Chicago, Boston, and several city council members of Philadelphia said. Liberal science doesn't work that way, everyone has to participate.

One last general LGBTQ point: Some people consider opposition to gay marriage the same as bigotry. It's not. There's perfectly legitimate arguments against gay marriage outside of homosexuality's alleged immorality, and just in case you've not ever heard it, here goes: marriage is only dealt with by the State (government) so it can be treated differently in the tax code. This is because there's considered to be many positive externalities from child-rearing married couples. Homosexual marriages, while capable of raising children, in most cases simply do not. So extending the same subsidy to them would not reap the same benefits. Another legitimate argument: Marriage is an inherently religious term, and so should be reserved for religions. The State should enforce contracts, and people can call those contracts what they like, but the State has no authority to say who is married and who isn't. Rather than extending state-marriage to gay couples, we should repeal it from straight couples and return the concept of marriage to its rightful religious place.

I don't find either of those arguments convincing, because of the tangible impacts people experience through the legal discrimination and the entrenchment of marriage in the State, but they aren't bigoted or ludicrous or even bad arguments. So don't immediately assume that support for traditional marriage equates with bigotry or idiocy.

I'm more optimistic about the Bills than I've been in years, so I'm excited for the NFL season.

Canada is a resource rich nation with a small population. The US is the 3rd largest country in the world. So the comparison is tough. Personally I think diversity (regional, cultural, religious, ethnic, whatever) makes taxation less appealing. Canada has a ton a diversity culturally and ethnically I know, but regionally it's not comparable to the US. It's easier to manage an expensive state that's smaller and dealing with a more cohesive area.

What the US could do, if you reject freeing the health care market, is take advantage of its federalist structure, and allow the states to experiment with the system. If you think the states won't or can't do that, then why do you think a world of nation-states functions differently?

Massachusetts' attempt was not successful. Their initial cost estimates proved to be way too little, and their solution... strip certain care from legal immigrants. Still didn't save the state's budget, which tanked. TennCare in the 90s was even worse, though health policy has gotten better than that at least.

The best argument against this is that states would struggle to regulate insurance companies with a national presence, so the benefits of economies of scale would be lost. But the federal government's involvement has done nothing to change this anyway.

As for the larger budget problems, they are driven by our military and our entitlement programs. Both need a fundamental change. Our tax policy is lousy but it's not as big a deal as those two.