My own personal experiences as a soccer referee (and as a longtime player, and then coach) has left me with a dislike for the attitude many coaches display these days. It is a belligerent attitude, one of getting one over on the opponent and on the referee. I have observed coaches yelling at 8 year olds for failing to do something they were incapable of doing in the first place. I have observed coaches screaming at their own high school players. It was no surprise when, later in that game, those same players yelled at me for giving a throw-in rather than a corner. I once had a coach abuse a colleague because he called a ball out over the far touchline. He was sitting on a cooler and couldn't even see the line! I've even been physically assaulted by a parent because I didn't award a penalty for a trifling foul to a U14 team that was already up by 10 (which is like being up by 70 in football, for all you non-soccer fans).

All this is simply not acceptable. We deal with it whenever we encounter it, but it's a losing battle. The home crowd likes it when the coach "sticks up for his/her team." Parents seem to be living out vicarious fantasies through their kids. Perhaps it is the predictable result of a culture that seems to defines everything in terms of a struggle, a "war," where getting the edge, and not coexisting peacefully with our fellows, is our goal in life.

We've forgotten that sports are supposed to be fun; that the game belongs to the players, and not to the coaches or the parents; that coaches, parents and referees are the adults and should be cooperating to make the experience a good one for the kids. It's not just the refs who will quit. Kids who find this atmosphere intimidating will miss out on what should be a fun and fulfilling activity. It once was a FIFA rule that coaches could not coach from the touchline. They would be limited to relaying instructions through substitutes, and at halftime. Maybe it's time to revive this. The time to prepare your team is before the game.

I am no southerner, nor am I a Republican; far from it. And yet, I am, or at least was for a considerable period, a NASCAR fan. Some have said here that NASCAR is boring. Others that its fans are one dimensional. Or that the driver base is dominated by southern rednecks. Or that this is a "Republican" sport. All of these opinions are themselves disappointingly one dimensional. Yes, there is truth to some of these assertions, but as usual reality is much more interesting.

Is NASCAR boring? No more so than any other sport one is unfamiliar with. I find basketball and baseball tedious. That doesn't mean its fans are one-dimensional simpletons. In fact, racing in general is highly technical, involving a delicate balancing act between strong physical forces. Alan Kulwicki, a graduate in mechanical engineering from the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, won the Winston Cup in 1992. He was a good driver, but his engineering expertise gave him an edge.

Is NASCAR a southern sport? Well, yes, but it is no longer dominated by southerners. Kulwicki, from Wisconsin, was a pioneer, but other non-southerners have been very successful. 2003 Nextel Cup champion Matt Kenseth is also from Wisconsin, as are most of his crew members. 2002 champion Tony Stewart is from Indiana, and 2004 champion Kurt Bush is from Nevada, both not exactly the Deep South. I attribute at least some of NASCAR's current success to the influx of non-southern drivers like Kulwicki who have done their part to invigorate the sport.

Is NASCAR a Republican sport? Perhaps most of its fan base may vote that way, I don't know. Did you know though that Dale Earnhardt Jr. took his entire crew out to see Fahrenheit 9/11 when it first came out? "It's a good thing as an American to go and see" he said. It's true that NASCAR has wrapped itself in the flag recently (and I find this a big turn-off), but I attribute much of that to NASCAR's uncanny marketing of itself to take advantage of current moods. And they are not alone in this. The NFL has also gone too far in this respect, giving the military prominent exposure in pre-game ceremonies, with fly-by's and what not (full disclosure: I served in the US Army for 10 years). Are readers here ready to accuse the NFL of being a Republican sport too?

So please think twice before stereotyping any large swath of the population.

I disagree with Professor Greenberg. Nixon may have stubbornly refused to give up in Vietnam, but at least he wasn't the one who lied to get us there in the first place. Nor did he dare shred the Constitution to the extent Bush has.

Bush, on the other hand, had the advantage of being able to look back on Vietnam for lessons. But he chose not to. He seems to stubbornly resist learning anything from others.

And don't forget that he is also spending us into ruin, running up the largest deficit (in real dollar terms) in our history.

In short, Bush combines the worst traits of presidents like Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Hoover, while showing no redeeming qualities whatever.

By focusing on Paris Hilton's gender, Ms. Traister misses the point. Paris is Paris because she is rich. She is a prominent member of a growing aristocracy, the new Marie Antoinette, a symbol of everything that is wrong with our society. Simply ignoring her won't do.

If you don't want more Paris Hiltons (and more George W. Bushes), then don't vote Republican, and don't buy into the Republican propaganda on taxes, particularly the estate tax. Because it is not the "Death Tax", it is the "Paris Hilton" tax and we need it!