Agreed regarding the speech.

I'm curious, I've spent some time in Europe and my sense is that the violence of the twentieth century affected Europe very differently than it did the US.

Europe seems, in general, justly chastened and suspicious of nationalism and militarism, probably because the European people saw the destruction first-hand.

Maybe this is just romanticising, I don't know, but it certainly feels to me that the US has only become more and more triumphalist while Europe more and more...what...cautious? Sober? Peaceful, even?

Hard to generalize about a continent, of course, but do you see any differences, based on your experience?

You make a lot of compelling points, many of which I'm sympathetic too.

I, too, am sensitive to free rein being given to vitriol and hatred and anger. I, too, believe in love and try to cultivate an ethos of love and charity in my life, difficult though it is and fail though I do.

That said, I do believe in righteous indignation.

To me, the question is whether your anger and hatred is targeted at specific people who are potential victims of subsequent violence or not.

For instance, a sermon thundering against homosexuals frightens me because gay people really do get gay bashed and that's a direct result of speech and attitudes that dehumanize them.

In the case of Wright, however (and I've not seen the sermon), my understanding is that his target was not people, per se, but governmental policies.

To me, that's a critical difference.

Was Wright really preaching against whitey? And was he doing so in a way wherein white people should feel at risk of physical violence?

Again, it's all about context. Inciting people (directly or implicitly) to visit violence on their fellow human beings is unacceptable hate speech.

The fire and brimstone whose object is injustice, however, is a whole nother kettle of fish, in my view.

Do you agree?

I'd like to echo Tom: it was deeply felt and I just want to be clear that I appreciate your sincerity and where you're coming from. Like Tom, I think your concerns are misplaced here, but I respect where you're coming from.

Very moving, Nicky. Heartfelt and cogent.

I'd be shocked if they published it, especially given its length, but man, I'd strongly encourage you to give it a shot.

Thanks, on behalf of all of us for whom you speak (and you speak for me, in that letter).

Bravo.

Wow, prevaricate much?

Sorry to be glib, but man, what do Australia, India, China and Ireland have to do with, well, the price of tea in China?

You got your degree in comparative sociology from where?

Do you know what "begging the question" means?

"I think most people are just thinking that in dangerous times, however it is we got here, here we are and people are legitimately concerned that Obama's close and spiritual association with a nutjob like Wright is an issue."

Whether or not Wright is a "nutjob," as you say, is the issue on the table for debate.

This essay is arguing that, despite the clips they've been playing, the man is not a "nutjob."

Please, try and keep up.

I should be more precise: the essay is not, in fact, about whether Wright is a nutjob in general, but rather about whether the sermon in question is evidence that he is a nutjob.

The essay is arguing that this sermon suggests nothing of the kind.

If you have any evidence that WRight is, in fact, a nutjob, I invite you to bring it forth.

(Before you do, you might consider the criteria according to which you consider someone a nutjob, and share them as well. That way, we can be on the same page as we go forward with this dialogue.)

I went to the wall too.

It moved me profoundly. I really had no idea just how moving it would be, but running my eyes across all those names, reading them, pronouncing them, moving on to the next one was undescribable.

It was similar, in fact, to a synagogue I visited in Hungary, I think it was, with the names of all the deported Jews etched into the walls.

There were thousands of them. As I stood there reading each name, they just became so tragically human.

God help us all.

Hear, hear.

Well said.

As soon as Clinton conceded that John McCain had the experience requisite to be commander-in-chief it was clear she'd never beat him, which I had suspected anyway.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seemed to me at the time that if her strategy was to "go toe to toe" with McCain on national security, she'd never win.

The only way to beat McCain is to change the terms of the debate, not to try to convince people that your member is as large as his.

It's not about posturing and fear-mongering and once Clinton put that 3am nonsense on the table as a serious issue, I wondered under what scenario she could win a contest of dueling 3am ads against a senior citizen white male war hero.

Such a blunderous, myopic and self-destructive strategy.

Does anyone believe that any voter looking for a hawk will choose Clinton over McCain?

Really, does anyone believe that?

I agree, but the far more damning point comes if we concede her point: let's say she actually did evade sniper fire.

The simple question then becomes, so what?

This is germane to "experience" how, exactly?

Any Clinton supporters or anyone else with a plausible answer to this question, I'm all ears.

I simply fail to see how that anecdote about sniper fire, true or false, is relevant to the argument she's adducing it to.

If Sinbad was with her, running for cover, would that likewise qualify him to be commander-in-chief?

Or Chelsea?

Really, I just don't get why the premise of the anecdote hasn't been examined in the first place.