This all makes me a little bit uneasy.

I know this sort of thing is mainly being used in highly contentious races like this one now, but are we going to see more and more future campaigns frantically chasing every past crumb of impropriety that can possibly be unearthed?

There are only two types of candidate who will be able to withstand this kind of examination: those who have never done anything wrong in their lives, and those who have been very, very good at covering up their misdeeds (or who have powerful friends to cover them up). I'm not sure I want either type in power.

It seems to me that there is one very significant question that no one is asking opponents of stem cell research:

If this research is bad because it is "embryo-destructive," then why aren't you out there trying to close down the infertility clinics that are producing, and then discarding, embryos?

Isn't that hugely inconsistent?

Or is it OK to create and destroy embryos in the pursuit of making babies, but not OK to do it to save adult lives?

I guess there is no category for "crimes of passion" in the court of public opinion.

This is a legal defense that is sometimes used to try to remove the element of premeditation from a criminal case. It doesn't justify the crime, but it can reduce the verdict, say, from homicide to manslaughter.

I've seen editorial cartoons with Richards wearing KKK robes. Characterizing him as a lifelong racist, who has finally tripped up, lost his cool, and shown his "true" self is like saying that a man who kills another man he discovers in bed with his wife is actually a lifelong serial killer. Both acts are reprehensible and wrong, but they say more about what people are capable of when they lose their temper than about who those people really are.

I dunno, maybe Richards is really a racist. I'm not defending his actions; I'm just wondering how much you can really read into them.

...about paying attention to the train wreck that is Paris. I enjoy snark, and I found this article amusing. I subscribe to Salon anyway -- articles about Paris have no effect on that.

The paradox in this, and other articles, is that she manages to make millions of dollars every year, and yet is widely despised. It's suggested that ignoring her will somehow correct this. My question is: Where is all the money coming from? My reading snarky articles about her on Salon does nothing to add to her personal income. I don't watch her TV shows, buy any merchandise she might produce, or buy magazines in order to read about her.

Maybe the people who are inexplicably tossing money at Paris Hilton Inc., whoever they are, are the real enablers, not those of us who are enjoying the free sideshow.

I'm not sure why The Ruins was shown so prominently in the graphic for this article. It stuck in my head after reading it, too, but in the same way that seeing guts spilled at a car crash would. I had to go find something upbeat and entertaining (Alan Moore's Promethea) to wash out the gore and despair.

I can't see how they will turn this into a movie that anyone will want to watch. There's no action; no excitement; just pages and pages of characters waiting to die. It's well written, but -- guh.

This article is a great Rorschach test, apparently. People are projecting all kinds of things upon it, and upon Debra. She's racist. She hates the poor. She's as bad as Barbara Bush.

I read a story of someone trying to make a difference and encountering an tragic but intractable situation, and coming away with a strange mix of frustration and relief.

Is it forbidden to tell the story of something that happened, because people will read things into it that weren't intended? Is it better if no one dares to speak of these things, and they are never brought up or discussed -- will that make the problem go away?

Isn't it the case that all of these expanded powers that the executive branch is claiming will also be in the hands of all future Presidents? Does the administration want this sort of power in the hands of a Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

They're acting like they are never going to give up control of the White House. Do they know something we don't? Or maybe it's not a Republican/Democrat thing; maybe the corporate and business powers-that-be, who benefit the most from this kind of deregulation, are confident that no one's going to get elected President without being beholden to them...

Here in Cincinnati, the local multiplex has an altered version of the poster displayed.

The image of Ricci has been removed from her place next to Jackson, so that he's just standing there holding a chain, as if, maybe he's going to beat down on someone's ass with it. Ricci has been moved to a small rectangle in the corner of the poster; you can tell she's chained, but the direct dominant connection between them isn't there. It really does make a big difference.

We're a notoriously twitchy city for being offended by art. I wonder how many other parts of the country got this version of the poster?