Please note that I did not say you had to be nice to them. But, maybe try saying "don't you get tired of being taken for a fool by the people on the radio?" Because, that's what's happening. Sometimes, you may need to point it out forcefully, because people are usually thick-headed no matter what their viewpoint. And besides, some people are just paid hacks to stir up trouble. Our trouble is figuring out whether they're for real or astroturf. Nothing says you have to be especially polite with them, particularly if they're initiating screamfests and the like. But, I think we should be scrupulously accurate in calling them down for it, and not loading up on emotional verbiage that gets neither side anywhere. I think what Barney Frank did was pretty good, because most people seeing what he said would at least pause to rethink their views if they're not allowed to be so over-the-top and irrational. I think they know somewhere in the back of their minds they're not being rational, but they don't know how to get to that point consciously.

--Ron

"Haven't you heard? Pointing out ANYTHING to these people is completely futile. They aren't interested in listening; they want to yell at somebody until they get the upper hand.

What you're seeing when they're called racists and stupid is sheer, utter frustration. People just throwing their hands into the air and giving up on ever talking any sense into thick heads that don't want to hear. It's all very well and good to say we should be nice, but we're really freaking TIRED OF BEING NICE. It just doesn't cut it with these people.

And since nobody in the government is apparently interested in doing the slightest thing about them, well...we get pissed. We're normal folks, not saints, for gods' sakes."

While I agree with the main thrust of your article, and in particular the grouping together you have here, I wonder about anyone who has a famous parent that is deserving of positions they've earned themselves. There aren't many of those, of course. Still, there must be some, and I always imagine they must consider their famous parent as much a burden and curse as a benefit, since they're often not taken seriously in their own regard.

But, now that I've written all that out I'm thinking "big deal." I do find myself far more irritated with people who get incredible unearned benefits simply because of family connections, while genuinely qualified and talented people are passed by.

Has anyone in the Bush family ever earned something on their own without family connections?

She's actually right, both of them engaged in illegal activity, and he as an officer of the court should be held to a higher standard than she was.

I've come to doubt all the accolades about Spitzer anyway, due to the extreme hypocrisy. There's something really rotten about jailing people for things you do yourself.

On another note, it's time to dial back the law enforcement on vice, it's stupid, counterproductive, and extremely expensive with no benefit. It could be regulated and come out with better results than what we have now, and I'm referring to ALL vice laws, including ones on drugs. These laws never work, and they've made the country far more dangerous besides. There's no reason on earth for a vice to be punished at the same level as violent crimes.

the likelihood that in an imperfect judicial system, we would execute an innocent person.

What possible benefit to society is there if an innocent person is executed? How would that help the survivors of the original capital crime? If they subsequently find they've executed the wrong person, then find another person is the real guilty party, do they execute him, too? What if, in a statistically unlikely, but not impossible situation, the second person turns out to have been innocent too? What if we executed two people wrongly?

Even the most pro-death-penalty people don't suggest that we have a perfect judicial system (Scalia's specious arguments notwithstanding). So, if its not perfect, that means sooner or later, the wrong person will be or has already been executed.

I think the burden should be on the people who want the death penalty to justify it, and justify the likely chance we'd execute the wrong person. Anyone who's comfortable with the death penalty is either failing to think through things about something extremely serious, or is morally bankrupt. There simply can be no decent objective in allowing the possibility of the execution of the innocent.

--Ron

Funny how much they ignore of their own beliefs. Isn't there a pretty strong prohibition about altering any words in the bible?

They pander to themselves to fit their desires onto their beliefs. Intellectually immature, as well as lazy.

If he truly thinks he did not deserve the award, then instead of giving the money to charity, why not just give the money to one or more of the other contenders? I'm sure they could use it in their peace-making efforts, and it'd be a nice gesture that they were very worthy.