Surprisingly few liberals on that top 20, but it will be interesting to see if their Evan Bayh prediction comes true.

Yesterday, my blogging partner (who's a Republican by the way), a guy with about 30 years of experience in the insurance industry, makes the case that when it comes to health care, insurance is not the solution.

The UK places great emphasis on respecting the religious convictions of patients - and increasingly the doctors who treat them too.

There is nothing medics can do when an adult refuses treatment on religious grounds, says Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics at the British Medical Association.

I agree that medics SHOULD do nothing when an adult in their right mind refuses treatment. It is sad that a doctrine would keep medical treatment from someone, but individual liberty must supersede any argument the doctors could come up with. Someone like myself could argue that the person is not in their right mind, and therefore the treatment to save the life should be given, but I also believe that a person should always have dominion over how and when their life comes to an end if at all possible.

How'd you like to have been a doctor or nurse who had to watch the Jehovah's Witness woman die? Having successfully managed to reproduce, she can't even win a Darwin award.

Re: The liberals list. C'mon - Howard Dean is #84 and Rahm Emanuel is #13? It was Dean's 50-state strategy and support for Democrats in places like Montana, Indiana, Idaho, Wyoming, Kentucky and Nebraska that delivered the House and Senate to the Dems. Dean was better for liberals than Rahm Emanuel by a long shot. (It is to the everlasting shame of liberals that they have allowed "the scream" to stand as the image of this guy.) Michael O'Hanlon? (#60). He has proven to be one of the biggest pussies in liberaldom. Bush's generals take this idiot on a tour of Potemkin villages in Iraq and he swallows it whole.

Commenting on the Jehova story, I wonder what the policy is toward female circumcision. In the US it has recently been banned (at least in CA). It does not matter that the father/mother think its a good idea to neuter their child, the law says that this is a crime.

Re: female circumcision (sorry for OT)

I'm glad that people are taking a look at this practice of barbaric mutilation and trying to put a stop to it. Unfortunately, I'm reminded of an old Calvin & Hobbes comic. In it, Calvin (who is once again running around the house, much to the frustration of his parents) says "The law is on the books, but it would take all their resources to enforce it."

Online copy here: http://tinyurl.com/2h978e

Susceptor, am I mistaken, or are you confusing the two, circumcision and neutering? I am no expert, but I'm almost positive they are different.

Any argument based on suffering or pain discrediting the existence of God is inherently flawed ... why?

there's no such thing as a "suffering unit" ... suffering can't be objectively quantified. The starving child with AIDS infected parents is suffering "a lot" but so are Alzheimer's patients who are well fed and looked after.

However, if we do want to start quantifying suffering or pain, then we need to start quantifying joy and pleasure.

If we can say there's "so much suffering in the world that God can't exist" then we can also say "there's so much joy in the world God must exist!"

If we're going to blame a Creator for one thing, we've got to blame him for the other. The same way you'd blame the designer/engineer/manufacturer of a sports car for a beatiful, powerful, amazing car that's totally unsafe.

• sean