... you should earn it while you're alive.

The idea of a "grace period" is pure nonsense; no one will be talking about Tim Russert in a month, or whenever the sensitivity police deem it kosher to speak the truth about this sorry excuse for a journalist. (Memo to all those with their panties in a bunch: Russert's family members are not reading the comment section at Salon.com.)

"Russert was a natural establishmentarian, who was blessed with an optimistic faith in the long-term wisdom of the nation's political elites."

In other words, he was a dope and a shill for the status quo. The fact that he died a little early doesn't change that.

... is just that, a mere tradition or cultural habit, with no particularly compelling rationale behind it. At most it might be a proper custom for friends and family members, but when public figures die, their legacy should be assessed in an objective manner. (When Dubya dies, will we have to spend thirty days pretending he was an alright guy?)

Understand this: Tim Russert has blood on his hands. Not as much as Bush, Cheney, et al., but this criminal administration depended on a compliant press, and Meet the Press, as we know, was the Vice President's favorite means of disseminating propaganda. Think about that for a second: if the White House thinks that your show is the easiest way to peddle their bullshit to the American public, you have completely failed as a journalist. This is an irrefutable truth.

This "tradition" of holding our tongues when someone bad dies does our society a great disservice. It is because of this silly norm that repugnant figures like Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon have their reputations sanitized and are remembered as flawed but great men instead of vicious criminals. Again, if you want people to say upon your death that you were a good man, live your life in such a way that that will be the truth.

Tim Russert was bad for our country; that would not have been a controversial statement two days ago. The fact that he died yesterday doesn't change that fact. If you insist on a thirty-day moratorium on the truth, the truth will die forever. In a month no one will be talking about Russert. Now is the time that his legacy will be assessed. Do we want it to be assessed honestly, or not?

For some *rational* defense of the silly "if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all" mentality that applies for some (unspecified) period after someone drops dead. I'm sure it makes you feel morally superior to decry the lack of decency on the internet and whatnot, but if you want to do so you might also want to take the time to explain what, EXACTLY, is so indecent about pointing out the truth about someone's legacy after they die.

Again, there are only two options, and "waiting" to tell the truth is not one of them. No one will be talking about this in a month. Russert's legacy is either assessed honestly now, or it never is. All of the ninnies on this board insisting that we're being "disrespectful" (to whom, exactly? Do you think Russert cares? Do you think his family is reading this?) are committing themselves to letting the lies about Russert (that he was an excellent journalist, etc.) solidify and become permanently entrenched conventional wisdom, at which point every young journalist will learn the following lesson: if you want to be a great, legendary journalist, you should be like Tim Russert. Which suffice to say is not a good thing for our country.

If you want to defend Russert substantively, fine. You're completely wrong, but at least you are engaging the real issue. More annoying are those who insist it is somehow "improper" or "disrespectful" to have an honest conversation about the legacy of a man who none of us knew personally, who was a public figure, and who (most on the left, anyway, will agree, or would have two days ago) was a key enabler of one of the greatest crimes in human history.

If we can't say anything bad (i.e. anything honest) about Russert because he's dead (and how long does the mourning period last?), would you apply the same rule to Cheney? To Bush? When those two monsters die, will propriety and good manners demand that we refrain from an honest conversation? Russert was a blight on our political landscape, and 9 out of 10 of you would have agreed with that last week. Am I happy he's gone? Not really, because he'll just be replaced by someone just as bad - someone who wants nothing more than to be the next Tim Russert, because golly, what a great man he was.

If you haven't noticed, politics is, like, pretty important nowadays. Some might say it's a matter of life or death. So sorry if Ms. Manners doesn't approve of what some of us have to say. But there are more important things at stake than your delicate sensibilities.